I was expecting a card that allows a creature to fight two creatures would create some controverse. I believe it is ok, but I am biased as the creator of the card. Anyone feels this is too strong/complex/cheap/should be uncommon?

It'll probably be ok as it is. The odds are if the creature you control hits two creatures of any reasonable size, it'll trade with them making this a 2-for-2.

It isn't so bad since fighting two creature means it will probably die in the end. The only trouble is if we add too many common or uncommon deathtouch effects in the set. Then it starts to be troublesome.

I don't like weird double fights at common. Most players are going to intuit this card incorrectly.

If the two instances of fight are separated, that would reduce the confusion. "If there are 3 or more nonland permanent cards in your graveyard, that creature then fights up to one additional creature." Or we could have a short reminder text (It deals damage equal to its power to both targets, then receives damage equal to their combined power)

Unfortunately, the non-flavor text suggestion is still confusing. I would assume many players would think that if a Glory Seeker was to fight two Goblin Roughriders consecutively, that his first fight would kill him. But it doesn't. Because the game won't check for states until the card is finished resolving.

Yeah, multiple fights within the same card effect turn really wonky. I'm pretty sure, fight 1 thing (die) then fight another thing, wasn't the intent.