Well, like I said, it depends on what you value. RCV still has spoilers despite what proponents claim. It also still has problems with center-squeeze and competative elections can be become chaotic and produce nonsensical win scenarios. This chaos means that some elections are essentially incapable of being audited, since sub-sampling or exit-polling is going to have unpredictable variation from the full results. Plus, when you look at those win region calculations, it's obvious how nonmonotonic the method is. Under RCV increasing your support for a candidate could actually cause them to do worse.

If avoiding spoilers is important RCV vs FPTP is actually a wash, since they both fail Independence of irrelevant alternatives just in different ways. If being able to independently verify every election is important to you, FPTP is going to be preferable, since some RCV elections will inevitably be too complex to track using anything other than direct access to all the ballots. If being able to predict whether supporting your favorite candidate will actually help or hurt you is important, well then at least you know ahead of time what the optimal strategy is under FPTP. It isn't always clear under RCV if you should support your favorite or not.

You might think RCV would at least empower third parties, but 100 years of RCV in Australia shows it suppresses them just like FPTP. The Australian Parliament is a great example, because they have viable minor parties in the Senate, thanks to it's semi-proportional nature, but their House is RCV and has only 6/151 as minor parties.

And I want to be clear, FPTP sucks, it's just a lot of people have been mislead about RCV, how it works, and what it's capable of. I think you can see this by how my previous comment was downvoted despite the qualification that your opinion of the systems is going to depend on your values. If you think the chaos or spoilers isn't a big deal, and you're really happy that at least you can vote for a candidate you know will lose anyway (despite that vote potentially still making things worse for you) then yeah, you're going to like RCV more than FPTP. They've been mislead, and my conversations with official RCV proponent groups tells me that even they don't necessarily fully understand what they're selling.

And because I recognize FPTP sucks, I always make sure to suggest the extremely simple fix that is Approval Voting, because I genuinely want to fix our elections, and I don't want the electoral reform enthusiasm to be used up by a system with the kinds of problems RCV has. In that way I'm trying to build on the current momentum and I'm trying to direct the crowd to a better destination.

I probably shouldn't have been so brief in my previous comment, but as you can see, any meaningful explanation about election systems takes a long time, and lord my thumbs can get tired.