Then you will be sick and tired all the time. Not a lot of people have time or desire to grind multiple tech trees. Do you want to exclude them all from balance discussions?
You establish authority, as someone who has experience with the discussed aircraft, and appeal to that authority, proving you’re right. At the same time you discredit opposing arguments, by saying that people stating them lack experience with the discussed aircraft, therefore they are wrong. Appeal to authority and ad personam, 2 logical fallacies in a single sentence.
Most likely it’s a perfect opportunity to get my ass whooped by a better player, without anyone proving anything.
Inability to apply the theory doesn’t disprove it. I could fly an F-16 and lose in a guns only dogfight to a MiG-29. It doesn’t disprove the fact that F-16 is a better dogfighter than MiG-29 in this game. It just proves that I have a skill issue.
It’s hard to set up a test that is worth something. It’s certainly not done with a “yo, prove it tough guy” attitude.
Profiling, ad personam.
Again, I highly doubt the quality of this test. In practice it’s probably just an ad personam.
What I meant is that in a real lobby people play more conservatively. You don’t spam missiles at 1 guy, you try to get the most kills with the missiles you have.
Also the ability to effectively 3rd party people or just fly around and shoot missiles, while keeping your speed is more important, than pure 1v1 performance from BVR to a dogfight. I would describe it as sewing the battlefield. That’s why AIM-120 is meta, not AIM-9M. R-27ER is better than AIM-7F/M at this, while AIM-54 is a low risk, low reward weapon.
1v1s from BVR to a dogfight are of course also important in sim, where player density is low, but they are not necessary to do well.