Are unsafe attacks necessary in combat systems?

Question

I have been studying a lot of combat systems across various genres of games, and from those that I have seen, having unsafe attacks seems to be quite a common staple. But I am not sure why? I think I understand the concept/purpose of unsafe attacks as a mechanic in a combat system; it essentially boils down to a risk vs reward system right? In order to balance an attack and prevent it from being overpowered the risk of it being unsafe is introduced, so if you get it right you reap a huge reward but if not you are hugely punished. In counter, an attack that is less risky reaps an equally less significant reward.

I suppose another way to pose the same question is, what effect would it have on a combat system if all attacks were made safe? For example would this make the combat more offensive/defensive focused as oppose to being an equal balance of both? Do games with such combat systems even exist?

I feel that adding a sprinkle of reality onto this concept may shed some more insight into why I find this mechanic slightly confusing. I am happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding is that in real life a skilled combatant (of any discipline) would never intentionally attack with a move that they know is unsafe, yet from what I have seen many games feature player characters with a plethora of unsafe attacks. Doesn't this go against the narrative that this is a skilled combatant? Another example is the basic jab; again happy to be proven wrong but my understanding is that the purpose of this is to create momentum for the attacker, hunt for an opening and be able to rely on this as the fastest and most safest attack in their arsenal. Yet so many games have jabs be unsafe on block. Why?

Hopefully I have explained my question in enough detail but if not please let me know what is missing and I'll be happy to add it. Thank you and looking forward to some insight on this part of combat systems.

Answer 1

Making unsafe [1] attacks work is part of the fun.

I don't have experience with fighting games, but I have done foil fencing. Attacks in foil are unsafe, because physics: if you move close enough to hit your opponent, they can hit you.

Fencers don't win by using safe moves. They get you into a rhythm, then break it. They switch out moves to take you by surprise. They time attacks for when you're off-balance and vulnerable. Learning to do this, and counter it, is part of the fun of the sport.

From what I've read about fighting games, all these techniques should work just as well there, and I believe fighting-game fans enjoy learning them just as much as I did.

Are they necessary? Maybe not (consider sniper rifles in shooters), but it wouldn't be the same game without them.

---

[1] In the sense used in https://www.reddit.com/r/MortalKombat/comments/crj5dt/comment/ex5p2t2/; i.e. an "unsafe" attack is a move that leaves you exposed to a counter if it fails.

Answer 2

So after doing some more extensive digging through various combat systems I think I have found the perfect game to answer this question... cue drum roll... Absolver.

The interesting thing in Absolver's combat system is that almost every attack is plus on hit and block, which is a pretty big contrast to many fighting games especially. From what I can see, the biggest difference is that there is less focus on the traditional big punishes and more on outwitting your opponent. So for example in other combat systems there are stuns, juggles etc which reward players with a big amount of damage eg. stun/juggle combo if the opponent finds themselves in enough negative frames to get hit by the stun/juggle initiator. However in Absolver's combat being at plus frames gives you the opportunity to apply pressure, in essence it feels more as though you are chipping away damage rather than winning large chunks of damage at a time. This is kind of like a poke war in other games, however since Absolver's combat is so fluid it doesn't have that feel.

In answering the question then, no it appears that unsafe attacks are not necessary in a combat system. However since that means that a player is able then to apply a wide variety of pressure there also need to be mechanics in place that can flip the direction of this pressure to prevent the combat being one sided. In Absolver's combat this includes:

• Every player with the ability to parry/dodge
• Every player able to always block even when in negative frames

There are also other more generic mechanics found in most combat systems like:

• Spacing
• Whiff punishing
• Feinting

These mechanics combined mean that even though the attacker is able to stay in positive frames (safe) combo after combo, at the same time the defender also has equally great tools at their disposal to turn things around. This means that a defender will be just as engaged as an attacker (looking for their opportunity) compared to combat systems where you are stunned/juggled and essentially now have to passively wait for the attacker to complete their punish combo on you.

If anyone else has experience with Absolver please feel free to comment if I have misinterpreted any part of the combat system for the sake of accuracy of the answer.