I've found Ilford FB to be a wonderful paper and I don't know many who dislike it - other than one individual still hankering after the old Dupont Varigam!
I think we're intermingling three separate issues here:
Image tone - that's an issue with developer, toner etc. But I'm not sure I've noticed much difference between RC or FB.
Highlights - purely a question of print exposure, (and dry-down; though I've had less problems with dry-down since I started using a less intense inspection light.) If the highlights are dingy - too much exposure; if they're blocked - too little.
Blacks - a question of filtration. If they're not deep enough, then, as long as your highlights are OK, contrast is too soft.
I have, in the past, had difficulty switching to a new paper - and sometimes between batches of the same paper, but I've found I can quickly overcome them as long as I treat each issue separately. I used to have a reticence in doing these tests but I've found it's quicker and cheaper to run them upfront rather than keep blindly throwing darts at the problem.
As regards FB / RC the issue here is really permanence. The emulsions are equal in this regards, but as far as I know, the issue of the polyethylene paper coating remains the long term issue - nt the emulsion.
Frankly, I'd hate to see someone discard Ilford FB 'cos, IMHO it's a wonderful addition to your repertoire.