I need to debunk this "exploits have to be benefitial" because that is the oxford definition of the word exploit, its getting annoying.
So because I am a researcher I like to look at different sources and references to find a more concrete summary of information, aplicable to an especific situation, for that matter I will look into the term exploit in the following definitions:
-
"Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)" - Oxford dictionary
-
"Make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand." - Oxford dictionary
-
"An exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers." - Developing online games, Jessica Mulligan.
-
"Exploits: The player uses mechanics put in by the developer to circumvent the gameplay." - Gamasutra on Gameplay Loop-holes.
And a small side definition for griefing in relation to exploits:
- "While players more frequently exploit issues to gain advantage for themselves, sometimes they may use them instead to irritate other players, known as griefing." - Wikipedia (uncertain source)
Lets go one by one, and dissect what is their relation to the issue I'm bringing up.
For 1, the term has more to do with a resource than the context of a system, the example listed for this one is "a new technology" being exploited to produce benefit from its use. This doesn't mean, of course that it can't be linked to the envionment of videogames, as it was correctly pointed out, using certain exploits can cause great benefit for the user, however in the broader sense of online games, having a benefit usually entails causing an negative to someone else like:
- being stuck behind a wall, able to fire at people but not being fired at in overwatch.
- duplicating items in mmo's causing economical inflations, like the infamous The Elder Scrolls Online dumping problems with the banks.
So just because someone derives a benefit doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems for other people, and in the issue I presented, the negative may be for both parties (loot is unretriavable). Even so, this definition doesn't really fit the exploit I presented so let's go over the other ones.
For 2, using a situation for an unfair underhanded tactic, is more or less what making loot unretriavable creates, as players have the ever present possibility to deny others of loot in a very simple manner, given that the player has to be able to maintain his distance long enough to sink beyond the barrier, while people trying to prevent that will have to do an extra efford, on a time limit, to first stop them, or else the loot simply is taken out of play. As there is no natural mechanics in the normal play area to destroy loot or make loot unretriavable, it is questionable if an object outside the play area, somewhere players aren't supposed to be, can be considered a fair intended tactic for loot disposal.
For 3, a definition in context of videogames, basically states that if its not in the developers intent, it is an exploit. Now how can losing loot be considered an advantageous bug? Well as most here have pointed out, having a way of ending chases without giving loot to anyone. There is however a way to do that in the game, but securing the loot to yourself instead, which is using any one of the 6 outposts scattered around the world, and since the chasers get nothing on both cases, the party that is not deriving any sort of gain is them, meaning that of course, the runners get the end of a pvp encounter and can return to their sailing until the next time they find someone. However it is clear that one way is intended and the other isn't, as mentioned before, due to how the barrier mechanic is obtuse in nature for the singular purpose of preventing players of swimming endlessly into nowhere, since they aren't supposed to be there, and the colateral effect of having loot be dumped there is just as obtuse.
For 4, circumventing gameplay is more in line with shortcuts or level skips, however it could be aplicable to imply that using the barrier exploit circumvents theft, which is one of the gameplay elements of sea of thieves. This definition is slightly more apropriate to define this exploit.
And finally 5, I threw around the word griefing, but I imagined the situation where someone holds on to a fort key from another crew's succesful fort raid, this person has the ability to make that key unretriavable, this would cause irritation and frustration on the enemy crew, due to how it would be impossible to retrieve the key once the exploit was performed. Engaging in pvp is not griefing, even chasing people can't really be considered griefing due to how that is not an exploit of any game mechanic, however spawn camping is griefing, since players are forced to spawn in their ship, if you keep the ship alive and watch the known respawn places, you are abusing a mechanic in a way unintended by the devs, so much so that the devs have directly stated how to deal with such a situation using the scuttle mechanic. In any case, a fort key can't be sold at an outpost, and their intended use is for the door, it can be not used at the door, but that is a simple choise and other crews have a right to disagree, however making the key permanently lost is only possible through the use of the barrier exploit, hence it could be considered griefing. Not just rare key items can be used for this example, but also regular items, stealing them from players without any intent on delivering them to outposts only to merely throw them beyond the barrier exploit.
In the end, this should clarify once and for all, that this is an exploit, please I didn't need to do this, but most of you seem to have a hard time looking beyond the first google search result.