People keep arguing back and forth about which one they like more, when, IMO, it comes down to the fact that BOTH are awful. The combat system needs an overhaul.
I don't think anti-auto-attack people are arguing that the combat doesn't need to be improved. It is simply much easier to start building off what you already have in place, instead of switching sides and then start building on that foundation (like you said, simply having an auto-attack implemented does not fix the game. It is more of a sidestep which is exactly what is worrisome about it).

But neither does the combat system need an 'overhaul'. Vast improvements on some specific areas, depending on what you want to accomplish, yes. There are multiple smaller or slightly larger features in place for the combat system that are quite irrelevant for the game at this point. Expanding on them while polishing the rest of the combat system should easily do. We are talking about months and months of work here, but everything would be a clear improvement over the former system.

These features are not like some others, that were doomed from the get-go (Marketplace in its original form, for one). They don't need to be changed. They need expanding, they need polishing. They don't need to be turned upside-down just because their current manifestation is not optimal. This game can not sustain many of these kind of changes. Especially for something as important as the combat system. Which is why it's incredibly important that if these changes are not for the better, we should not support it. We already did that during the Beta. I did. I sure as hell won't repeat that mistake by letting them off the hook for whatever reason.

Fortunately most of the planned changes I can agree with. But this, this just may not be what the game needs at all. I'm glad this is important to many others as well, even if we disagree. The more fuss we make, the more likely the devs are to respond.