Street Fighter 6 throw loops are almost unanimously loathed.

The question is not whether there is a problem, but what to do about it. To answer that, you need to understand why you hate throw loops. So, why do you hate throw loops?

But first, some wrong answers.

Wrong answer 1: They’re too strong

Focussing on strength misunderstands the problem as one of balance rather than design.

Consider a simple nerf: reducing their damage. What would this do? There would of course be fewer rounds won entirely off throw loops. However, there would also be more throw loops. The defender could more easily “just take the throw.” Then the attacker has to do the throw more often to get the defender to do something else. It would still feel bad.

For a damage nerf to make throw loops less common, it would have to be so severe so as to make it almost not a threat. That is, the reward of the throw would have to roughly match the risk—i.e. corner pressure would no longer exist. Sure, this would get rid of throw loops, but it would also get rid any reason to care about positioning. Moreover, given that throws are the main mixup tool, it would almost remove mixups entirely. So not good.

Rounds as disastrous as the final round of UFA 2024 are rare. This satirical supercut of throw loops in Capcom Cup 11 doesn’t have a single round as obviously bad. The reward does not so greatly outweigh the risk that looping 5+ times in a row is particularly sensible.

Wrong answer 2: They’re too repetitive

Repetition gets closer to the root issue, but still misses the mark. A lot of situations in fighting games are repetitive but don’t draw as much ire.

For example, in Tekken 7 jab is one of the best moves in the game. It gets used far more than corner throws happen in Street Fighter 6, and yet nobody gets particularly frustrated or bored playing the jab-on-block or jab-on-hit situations over and over.

On the other hand, a lot of people do get insanely frustrated playing the Kunimitsu 2,2 on block situation. This is a good hint for where the real problem lies.

Wrong answer 3: They’re solved

Another contributing factor is that it’s “played out,” but this is still not the essential problem. A lot of situations in fighting games are solved but are also fun.

For example, when an opponent jumps and would be hit by an anti-air, this situation is fully and easily solved: the anti-air wins every time. Jump-in loses to waiting.

But the solved nature of this situation doesn’t detract from it at all. What would detract from it would be if the anti-air came out automatically, or if the game slowed down while someone is jumping, making the execution of the anti-air trivial. (As an aside, consider the implications this has for Modern controls.)

This reveals the correct answer.

Correct answer: They’re too slow

Let’s revisit Kunimitsu’s 2,2 in Tekken 7. A jab takes 27 frames in total, 450 milliseconds. That isn’t a lot of time to react, but it’s also just enough time to react. It’s a challenge, neither too easy nor too difficult. On the other hand, Kunimitsu’s 2,2 takes 51 frames in total, 850 milliseconds. With almost twice the amount of time, even inexperienced players are able to react appropriately every time. The challenge no longer exists.

In Street Fighter 6, Ryu’s forward throw is 96 frames in total.

1600 milliseconds.

(And that’s one of the faster throws. Guile’s is 139 frames.)

What makes throw loops so insufferable is that the throw itself takes too long.

Fighting games at their core are real time games. The challenge is not just to make good decisions, but to make them quickly and precisely. Whenever players are given too much time to make their decision, the real time element is removed. It becomes a turn based game.

In a fully turn based game, even in relatively complex ones, playing from behind is not fun. There is no joy in a fruitless struggle. Have you ever played Monopoly? That’s the point of the game. To make you suffer. Strategy game designers are aware of this and (if they want the game to be fun) do everything they can to avoid putting players in prolonged positions of powerlessness. Once it’s clear who is going to win, the game ends.

Of course, in a turn based game, this is inevitable to some degree. Advantages must exist, and one must always wait for the opponent in a turn based game.

But in a fighting game, a genre that so clearly should be fast-paced and action packed, where the real-time element should be most emphasized, this problem should not exist. It’s not inherent to the genre. It’s a fixable problem.

Possible fixes

Once the problem is understood, the fixes are easier to see.

Only one of two things is required: either the situation after a throw must be more equalized (such that neither player is particularly on the back foot), or throws need to be a lot faster (at most 500 milliseconds).

The first fix turns throws into a tension release, giving both players time to reset for another bout. Examples include throw invincibility on wake-up or after blockstun (would function similar to proximity throws in King of Fighters and Guilty Gear), less frame advantage (or even frame disadvantage), or more spacing post-throw. The second fix maintains a high tempo, but animating a throw with only 30 frames may be unrealistic.

However, any fix must also consider balance. If a design change also makes throws weaker, it could disrupt the delicate balance between offense and defense. We don’t want to trade one problem for another. To make sure this balance is not disturbed, one could increase the damage or meter burn of throws to compensate. Such buffs would not reintroduce the current problems because the change is only to the immediate reward, having little effect on the post-throw situation.