Posted 26 May 2012 - 08:02 AM
For something to be an exploit, it really needs to be unintended, and fixable. People complain about a lot of things being overpowered or broken or something, but to really be an exploit something needs to be specific enough for a simple rule or a software update to fix.
If something's broad and on a sliding scale, then it might be imbalanced, but it's not an exploit.
"This(these) specific mech design(s) is(are) broken and illegal in our tournament matches." This sort of thing seems specific, but really only makes the best mech design the one closest to the broken one, while still inside the rules. To really fix the problem, there would need to be broad changes to the mechanics the imbalance comes from.
To really be an exploit, something needs to be definable with a hard line. Pretty much always these fall under game glitches or oversights, but sometimes they can arise from very specific combinations of game mechanics that, when all combined, break something. Stun-locking someone would be something that could fall in that category, though it is a fairly fuzzy definition. Some combination of abilities that, when combined, make it trivial for another person to do something that is intended to be very difficult could also be another possibility.
If you can't state a rule about it in one or two sentences, then it's probably not an exploit and more of a clever use of game mechanics. Whether the game mechanics involved in a strategy are balanced is another question.