I pointed out the other side to illustrate that there are reasons some people like things the OP does not. Unsurprisingly, the OP just doubled down with the insults. There was, however, a small chance that someone asking why a game was popular would be interested in why a game was popular, so I did mention that for one of the points.
I did not "harshly" say anything. It was maybe slightly dismissive, but the OP ignored everyone who agreed with some points, ignored help except to challenge it's validity and just got more abusive in response to answering questions, so the only thing left if you don't like a game, and aren't at all concerned with debate or giving feedback, is to play games you do like.
I don't see how it makes anything "even worse" to mention there are games that automate things in addition to what the OP specifically brought up.
RPS is mostly a game of chance. The only skill involved is figuring out which pattern the NPC is using so you can predict the next move. Showing ties would not add anything, just make the process longer. Nobody has ever said the lack of ties breaks immersion or that they would prefer if it were more 'realistic'; that I recall, it is pretty much only mentioned to complain that the game cheats.
There is skill involved in combat, and how your characters end up after combat is a reflection of how well you do. Auto healing eliminates consequences for doing poorly, so makes a difference to the mood of combat and flow of the game. Some people may prefer one over the other, to a lesser or greater extent, but there are reasons not to auto-heal.
In general, pointing out that someone's continued abusive language and/or behaviour (when they are insulting the intelligence of others) does not exactly present their own intelligence / maturity in the best light is the least invasive way to address the matter. In theory, that could cause them to take a look at their behaviour and possibly modify it. Of course, that's not very likely, if they don't do so on their own after calming down from a post made in anger or frustration, but it could happen.
For the OP, I did not attack his intelligence, or even give a direct opinion on it (don't really have one). I made a statement which is factually (as far as the evidence available) and logically true, but which could have very simply been refuted by the OP. Even a basic 'I understand, but they're wrong' would have been a step up in logic and behaviour.
I made no blanket statements about people or groups, and nothing I said should alienate anyone (arguably not even the OP). I made a very specific 'if A then B' statement. It doesn't matter if you agree with some or all of the OP's points; if (on any topic at all, in matters of taste) you can't understand that people can have opinions different than yours, and classify everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, that says more about your own intelligence than theirs. It wouldn't matter if you agreed with me on everything, that would still apply.
