The thin, blurry line where tactical encounters start to feel like a puzzle

[Van-d-all]

Incubation also had those enemies which were almost completely resistant to damage except from the back and levels that placed them on narrow pathways making them very puzzle like. Still a fun game though.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

For a turn based wargame with a simulationist approach, I can recommend winSPWW2 and winSPMBT.

This definitely doesn't stop people from building very puzzle-like scenarios on Steel Panthers.

 

[JarlFrank]

For a turn based wargame with a simulationist approach, I can recommend winSPWW2 and winSPMBT.

This definitely doesn't stop people from building very puzzle-like scenarios on Steel Panthers.

Yeah some level-designers like to make puzzly levels to show how clever they are. Happens in all moddable games.

 

[Galdred]

It is discouraging that so many devs are following the Meier Doctrine that you cannot trust the accuracy percentages you see in games anymore. It would be much healthier if misses translated into miss protection in a way that wasn't hidden from the player.

What is even more jarring is that a lot of tabletop games already had similar mechanisms:
In Heavy Gear, being shot at made the next shots against the same target easier (I think it was called crossfire or something like that, and represented the fact that it is harder to dodge a second attack).
Good old space Hulk also had similar mechanisms (called sustained fire).
Even DnD has something somewhat similar with dodge bonus working for a single attack.
Neither was described as: "mechanisms to help the whiner enjoy the game", but were there to mitigate variance.
Keeping them secrets is very dumb indeed, when there are good reasons to have it in the first place (also, giving a bonus to hit B because some other of your soldiers missed his shot against A is really, really dumb).

I think comparing Incubation: Time is Running Out (1997) with Chaos Gate (1998) might offer some insight in puzzle vs tactics question.

While both are squad based tactics games with sci-fi theme from 90s with campaigns with fixed missions (in Chaos Gate you can grind xp in random battles).
In both games you have persistent soldiers that gather XP etc.

Typical level in Incubation is tight maze and gameplay typically centers around managing overwatch fire so that enemies don't get to swarm your squad to death before you've done your objective.


Whereas Chaos Gate offers lot's of straight brawls where huge (for squad based tactics game) forces just slug it out.

And both were great in their own way!

Chaos Gate gave you a lot of ways to overcome the opponents:
Super Armored terminators, sending disposable marines with a jetpack to murder enemy heavy weapons in the middle of their squad, or countersniping with your own heavy weapons...

For Fuck's Sake, Do you people even eat a cake?

This thread illustrate very well what game Codexers like to think tactical: aka bad ones. It's not a false declaration when we say Codexers are bad tactical gamers.

When people like me speak on tactical encounters and tactical games, we mean:

Jagged Alliance 2 (okay, some did remember to say it here)
Fallout Tactics (zero)
Icewind Dale 2 (zero)
UFO Aftershock (zero)
UFO Afterlight (zero)
UFO Extraterrestrial (okay, not so great, but it can satiate your tactical need for a time) (zero)
Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels (zero)
Hammer Sickle (zero)

Do you see them getting mentioned here? No? Do you even know what tactical encounters are?

This is like asking mountain people what ocean is.

Those are tactical RPGs.

People in this thread have been mostly using tactical squad games and larger military sims/wargames as examples.

There's a massive difference between the games you mentioned, and games like Graviteam Tactics, Total War, Steel Panthers, Panzer General, John Tiller wargames, etc etc. Both feature tactical combat but they're fundamentally different genres.

His exemple still works when we compare a game like IwD to Druidstone, Wargrove or Into the Breach.

 

[Norfleet]

low-cost purchaseable tanks

iggy bin worthy opinion, tanks are by far not lowcost

The starter purchaseable ones are, they only cost money, a resource which quickly becomes plentiful by the time they actually start dying regularly.

 

[Kaivokz]

while many games implement RNG just awfully , using systems that skew chances in favor of player, to meet their expectations, instead of simply making the spread of outcomes more reasonable.

In Fire Emblem six through eleven a 20% hit chance = 8% true hit chance and a 90% = 98% because of player expectation.

The real path to better RNG is teaching probability to kids like we teach basic arithmetic so people stop being so retarded.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

A tactics game places you in somewhat random and unforeseen scenarios and gives you a set of tools to prevail in these scenarios. The number of viable options to solve the problem is relatively high and revolves around a number of systematic mechanics that can be adapted to different situations (flanking, creating smoke cover, scouting and sniping/bombing from afar, using explosives to destroy cover, suppressive fire etc. etc.). Additionally, outcomes are influenced by RNG and are often non-binary (bullets will miss, a stealth attempt may fail, characters might be wounded instead of killed in an attack, grenades may not land exactly where you wanted them, explosions can have varying impact...). Win or lose states during the scenarios ale less strict, the player can recover from bad moves/decisions or unforeseen events to a certain extent by adapting his tactics.

A puzzle game presents you with handcrafted scenarios that have been specifically created by the designers with a very limited number of solutions or even only a single viable solution. The tools given to the player are not versatile enough to overcome more randomized scenarios. Handcrafted enemy placement is required to ensure that the player can solve a given challenge with the available toolset. The solution to the challenge at hand is usually much more sequential than in tactics games, requiring performing certain steps in a certain order. Failure to do so may block further advancement or even result in a fail state from which the player has no viable option to recover. Outcomes are deterministic and binary - because the scenarios are rigid and viable solutions are limited, the player must be able to rely on the full predictability of his actions‘ outcome, otherwise the experience will be unfair and frustrating, as there are limited or no possibilities to recover from bad outcomes. This means for example that shots fired will always hit and cause the expected amount of damage, attacks from behind will always knock the enemy unconscious, AoE attacks have a strictly defined and transparent area etc.

An example is X-Com vs. the Commandos games (especially the first one). In the former, level composition and enemy placement are randomized to a certain extent because the player has universal tools that allow him to handle such randomness. In the latter, scenarios are handcrafted down to the placement of the last soldier. Random placement of enemies could easily result in scenarios that are either ridiculously easy or unsolvable without relying on exploits.

Of course, the distinction between tactics and puzzle game will be blurry in most cases and the criteria defined above will be a question of degree. For example, handcrafted enemy placement does not automatically mean "puzzle game". This can also be used in tactics games, because the designer wants to create certain exciting or especially challenging setpieces. However, a tactics game should give the player multiple ways to resolve the setpiece (or rather, these options should naturally result from the more systemic approach and universal toolset as described above).

 

[thesheeep]

The real path to better RNG is teaching probability to kids like we teach basic arithmetic so people stop being so retarded.

Won't help.
It's not a problem of understanding how RNG works (seriously, 20% hit chance isn't that hard to understand it will hit rather rarely).
It's a problem of how frustrating it is to miss at high chances.

Missing a 70% shot three times in a row is totally possible, but incredibly frustrating, no matter if you understand the math or not (which, again, isn't that hard).
Honestly, I'm all in favor of skewing the results - if it is done fairly, so not only in favor of the player, but also to their detriment.
E.g. what I'd do is to add the misses-in-a-row up and once it reaches a certain threshold (something about 175-200%?) make it a hit, no matter what was rolled. So if you miss two 70% shots in a row, the third one would be a hit, no matter what.
You could even make this fully transparent, change it so that it guarantees your next hit and tell the player (wasn't there some western tactics game that did this?), restrict abuse by making it apply only to same attacks (same weapon, same target, etc.), ...
There's really a lot that can be done with it. Just like a good DM might decide to "interpret" dice rolls a bit differently than what the official rules say to keep the game going.
In the end, it's about fun, not about slavishly adhering to the dice.
As long as things are applied to everyone (including the enemy), nothing bad comes from it.

And, of course, add an option to disable the skewing to appease the "but muh purity of maths!" crybabies.

 

[Van-d-all]

Missing a 70% shot three times in a row is totally possible, but incredibly frustrating, no matter if you understand the math or not (which, again, isn't that hard).
Honestly, I'm all in favor of skewing the results - if it is done fairly, so not only in favor of the player, but also to their detriment.

That's just seriously counterproductive. Why skew the math, if you can just have a completely reasonable "same target' bonus which simply increases hit chance. Many games do this already. I know you mean something similar, but it's just the mechanics fault of not representing the reality well enough, not the RNG's...

 

[thesheeep]

Missing a 70% shot three times in a row is totally possible, but incredibly frustrating, no matter if you understand the math or not (which, again, isn't that hard).
Honestly, I'm all in favor of skewing the results - if it is done fairly, so not only in favor of the player, but also to their detriment.

That's just seriously counterproductive. Why skew the math, if you can just have a completely reasonable "same target' bonus which simply increases hit chance. Many games do this already. I know you mean something similar, but it's just the mechanics fault of not representing the reality well enough, not the RNG's...

That would only tackle the problem if the bonus could go up to 100%.
Think about it: 70% hit chance, miss. Same target, now 80%, miss again. Wtf. Same target, now 90%, miss again... Unlikely, yes, but the goal of the skewing is to prevent frustration like that entirely.
If you made that bonus so significant that 100% would be reached extremely fast, you'd basically tell players to always focus on the same target and make that the only logical way to play.
Additionally, it would introduce new problems: What if the target moved in-between turns? What if other conditions changed? Why would you still get a bonus if lots of conditions changed - and if you don't get a bonus anymore, you're back to square one with the original problem.

Not that I wouldn't like such a bonus, mind you, but I don't think it serves to solve the same problem.
The problem being: How to avoid frustration from extreme RNG results?

It's about a thousand times more troublesome than saying "Okay, you accumulated a 200% hit chance by missing a lot in a row, so this most recent miss (or the next attack) will actually be a hit".

The only downside is that it indeed deviates from a "perfect" simulation.
Which is a non-issue, except if the game is a simulation - and in that case, everyone will understand why you can't really skew.

 

[Kaivokz]

you'd basically tell players to always focus on the same target and make that the only logical way to play.

Your solution would have the same optimal strategy, it would just be hidden from players. “Why do I feel like I’m significantly more likely to hit when attacking the same target?”

I prefer systems with either total transparency or zero transparency. If you show me the math, show me the math. If you care about feels “wah wah i missed with 70% 3 times and it feels bad”, just do all the math behind the scenes.

That’s the core issue I have with number skewing though—tactical thinking is about reacting to (unexpected or expected) changes in the scenario. It’s like if you’re playing riichi mahjong waiting on a 2 or 4 of bamboo draw to finish a meld, and then 3 people discard the 2 and someone kan’s a 4. Adapting to situations like that is a big part of what makes tactical combat fun for me—not a cozy feeling of probabilities lining up with my expectations.

 

[spectre]

I kinda wrote about this on the previous page. I don't think the problem isn't really with the math (if you're into strategy gaming you should at least have some degree of familiarity with now numbers work) and therefore fudging numbers isn't the solution.
I would also argue that fudging numbers is something best done by a human moderator cause algorithms make the system gamey and/or exploitable. It works in a tabletop setting which isn't competitive, but otherwise, I have my doubts.
The problem is when the die roll result is a binary pass/fail - the more extreme the difference between these two, the more frustration you get (which breeds other unwanted stuff like save scumming).
A possible solution - more fluidity between the pass/fail states.
Another possible solution - more checks, making individual pass/fails matter less.
Now since we were discussing chance to hit specifically, I am not against a flat bonus for firing at the same location, it's logical and believable to have the shooter follow projectile impact and compensate.
But let's also explore what happens when you "missed" - the bullet can still cause suppression, can get lodged into something important and hinder movement, it can ricochet and hit something else. A detailed physical simulation can handle this (cf. Silent Storm), but less sophisticated systems can do it as well (XCOM).

The higher the overall "chance for success", the lower the chance for "eeeh, you just missed" should be, imo.
If it was a 99% shot, I think the player deserves to see some result, rather than just a fizzle. And if it's a fizzle, there needs to be some kind of an explanation for it, otherwise, what you get is frustration and "eeeeh, reload".
But the reverse can be true as well - if you attempt an action with a low % chance,
it might give you a higher chance for royally fucking things up. You play stupid games swinging above your pay grade, you win stupid prizes.
Same can be done for melee combat, okay, so you didn't really score a hit, so what happened? No damage was dealt due to a desperate parry, but you knocked the other guy around and will be finishing him off the next round?
If we're talking about a 95% hit, I think it's fair if the killing blow is delayed to the next turn, but the inevitability is preserved.

To some extent, I agree, this all can be just simulated by just stacking bonuses on failed rolls. It's an easy solution that can work in certain scales.
Though I believe it just reinforces the bad habit of thinking that you somehow deserve a successful outcome after a row of failures and you need to tune it a lot not to feel gamey.

 

[thesheeep]

Your solution would have the same optimal strategy, it would just be hidden from players. “Why do I feel like I’m significantly more likely to hit when attacking the same target?”

Uhm... no?
I mean, you could do it like that (as I said, there are many things you can do once you allow skewing), but I'm not suggesting you have to do it. I'm suggesting you count every missed attack in a row, no matter the target and source, add up the hit chance and if it reaches a threshold, convert the attack to a hit (if it wasn't a hit already).
Once an attack hits, it resets.

That’s the core issue I have with number skewing though—tactical thinking is about reacting to (unexpected or expected) changes in the scenario. Adapting to situations like that is a big part of what makes tactical combat fun for me—not a cozy feeling of probabilities lining up with my expectations.

In harder games with deadly combat at least, when you are subjected to some extremely unlucky streak, the change in scenario is the game over screen. Not much you can react to there.
Fairly easy to achieve something like that in games like Battle Brothers. Fairly easy battle turned into party-wipe by your guys missing 6 50%+ chances in a row, while (naturally) the enemies (still alive as you didn't kill anyone) all score hits on similar chances. So now your only "reaction" is to flee or attempt to win with the most likely result of death.
If that is your definition of fun, cool - it certainly isn't mine. For me, that's just a "reload until RNG doesn't fuck you over".

I prefer systems with either total transparency or zero transparency. If you show me the math, show me the math. If you care about feels “wah wah i missed with 70% 3 times and it feels bad”, just do all the math behind the scenes.

I'll show you the math AND the skewing. And then you can disable it if it offends you
After all, the benefit of fair skewing (as in, the enemy gets the same treatment) is that it doesn't really change the balance of the game in anyone's favor - and therefore disabling it doesn't, either.

The problem is when the die roll result is a binary pass/fail - the more extreme the difference between these two, the more frustration you get (which breeds other unwanted stuff like save scumming).
A possible solution - more fluidity between the pass/fail states.

That's also true.
I think Pillars Of Eternity did that one fairly well.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

If game had system that gave some reward for taking a shot, then there would be less need for skewing numbers under the hood for players favor.
For example in Steel Panthers units that get shot become suppressed/panicked even if they take no damage or aren't even directly hit.
Another example is Warbanners where units that get attacked eventually become tired and start taking damage when exhausted.

Both of these systems exists on top of "random" change-to-hit.

 

[Kaivokz]

Fairly easy battle turned into party-wipe by your guys missing 6 50%+ chances in a row, while (naturally) the enemies (still alive as you didn't kill anyone) all score hits on similar chances

That’s the mindset I’m talking about—why do you deserve to win if your strategy rests on hitting 3+ of 6 hits with a 50% chance on each? Fudging the numbers just means your “strategy” (aka, hope you hit some 50%s) is being catered to, instead of you finding some better strategy that doesn’t require so much luck.

If you are going with such a volatile strategy, you should be prepared to lose and retreat.

Otherwise find ways to reduce volatility. Reposition your guys, bring more archers, focus fire different targets, make different strategy choices (I mean in terms of build and equipment setup, etc)—whatever it is.

I agree with finding more engaging ways to simulate combat. I’ll bring up mahjong again—even in a game like that, going for volatile plays can be good sometimes: if you have a potential for a high scoring hand the risk can be worth it esp. if you’re already behind, but if all you have is crap or you’re already ahead it could be better to fold or play for a safe riichi. That kind of choice isn’t really simulated in standard combat systems because your attacks are mostly discrete pass/fail acts without a sufficient role in the larger battle strategy. eg a high hit chance miss opening up a combo/follow up attack or something to that effect.

 

[thesheeep]

Otherwise find ways to reduce volatility. Reposition your guys, bring more archers, focus fire different targets, make different strategy choices (I mean in terms of build and equipment setup, etc)—whatever it is.

I see you've never played Battle Brothers

First of all, I said 50%+ to make the point that you are more likely to hit than not. If all you see is 50% everywhere, you run
Also I said that you miss all of those, while all the enemies hit. I don't think I need to explain how unlikely that is.

No strategy in deadly games (high combat lethality) is capable of sustaining bad luck like that. None. It's simply not possible when you are up against a force just as well equipped (or better equipped as is generally the case until the very late game).
In such a situation, you don't lose because your strategy was bad (there is no strategy that could have survived that much bad luck). You lost because of RNG, plain and simple.
Again, if that is fun to someone - cool.

This also forces you to play extremely defensively - one of my biggest criticisms of BB - as it is the only way to mitigate at least some bad luck.
Unfortunately, that playstyle is also pretty damn boring (at least in BB). Shieldwall up, spears for repelling, grind levels until some characters are good enough to do something else. Ugh... zzzZZzzZz
Similar issue in Mordheim, btw.

It is less of an issue in games with higher HP pools (or whatever determines if a character stays in the field) - making those games also much less in need of skewing.
Those games have other issues, though, for example very slow combat.

"Then you shouldn't have chosen to fight" - in an optimal situation, true, but you are not given that choice a lot.
Back to BB, you can sometimes decide not to fight a battle - but really only if you can afford losing out on the reward without going broke (=game over), which is somewhat rare later and non-existent early on.

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

I’ve been playing Dungeons of Naheulbeuk recently and I think it’s a good example of balancing the strategic and tactical aspects enough without becoming puzzle-like or rote.

The toughest set pieces have had me needing to try them 3 or so times and develop a different strategy like whether I deploy heavy to one side, choosing priority targets, whether I try and stay tight with body blocking or spread out, whether I try and take advantage of some good terrain etc. This helps avoid it being a rinse wash and repeat methodological approach to encounters.

But actually implementing that strategy requires a lot of tactical thinking because chaos ensues and I need to quickly adapt to the circumstances of the battles. There is a high degree of uncertainty on whether my CC will stick, and attack of opportunity misses, etc, not unlike Blood Bowl, so it’s a constant process of re-evaluating the situation and updating my game plan.

 

[Van-d-all]

That would only tackle the problem if the bonus could go up to 100%.
Think about it: 70% hit chance, miss. Same target, now 80%, miss again. Wtf. Same target, now 90%, miss again... Unlikely, yes, but the goal of the skewing is to prevent frustration like that entirely.
If you made that bonus so significant that 100% would be reached extremely fast, you'd basically tell players to always focus on the same target and make that the only logical way to play.
Additionally, it would introduce new problems: What if the target moved in-between turns? What if other conditions changed? Why would you still get a bonus if lots of conditions changed - and if you don't get a bonus anymore, you're back to square one with the original problem.

Um ugh, just no. If you still miss, such is life. The bonus usually applies for given turn. For the sake of active pause (Brigade E5) it could be extended to target not having moved. If someone should really want to take it to the next level it's still possible to simply apply "same target" and "changing conditions" as separate modifiers and apply both. That said, nothing should ever go above 95% IMO. With odds like that, consecutive misses become drastically improbable, but granting a 100% just because of frustration is way to gamified for my taste. And very abusable at that.

A possible solution - more fluidity between the pass/fail states.
Another possible solution - more checks, making individual pass/fails matter less.

This. Firstly it should go BOTCH > MISS > GRAZE > HIT > CRIT, secondly, Gaussian probability.

This also forces you to play extremely defensively - one of my biggest criticisms of BB - as it is the only way to mitigate at least some bad luck.

Some games (eg. Tharsis) just emphasize on their replayability aspect, and as such make the RNG prone to bad luck on purpose. BB is one of them, possibly to a fault, given how long a single campaign can be. Personally I'd even like that part, having to deal with causalities, if it wasn't for the impending doom counter which makes loosing brothers more and more punishing. Sadly, the start again vs. single run length dissonance often becomes obvious only after the game is made. Sunless Sea devs even admitted they regretted it afterwards.

 

[fantadomat]

When they are restricted and have more or less a single way to do it....like shadow tactics and desperados 3.

 

[Pocgels]

I would consider a puzzle with multiple solutions a pretty weak puzzle. Suduko puzzles are only supposed to have 1 solution, for example.
Conversely, a tactics game should have multiple (viable) ways to approach beating a mission, some of which may not be open to you depending on your "build". For example, if you decide not to bring a machine gun on your heavy in Silent Storm, which strategies you can use to win should reflect that. If you've really screwed up your build, maybe there is only a single way to approach winning, but that is still due to decisions you made earlier.

As for managing contingencies and RNG (not something you should ever be doing in a puzzle game) I thought the developers of Battle for Wesnoth (freeware strategy game with some rpg elements) had a pretty interesting take:

"In Wesnoth, there is a substantial, but not huge amount of luck. The main luck limiting factor is the way in which units have multiple strikes in a battle. A unit with four attacks has four chances to hit, not just one, and so it is generally reasonably unlikely that they will either miss all four times, or hit all four times. Of course, units have different numbers of strikes. This means different units are susceptible to luck to different degrees. This is one of the key gameplay facets of Wesnoth: managing luck. There are many opportunities to manage how much risk one exposes oneself to, and make backup plans if things go wrong.
...
Wesnoth's approach also requires a substantial amount of analytical ability from the player. In chess, and in Fire Emblem, one knows that if they lost, they made a mistake. In Wesnoth, one can occasionally play better, and still lose. Bad in many ways perhaps, but still it adds an interesting facet: it requires more analysis as a player. You have to be able to distinguish from situations where you played a good strategy but still lost, and situations where you lost because of your poor strategy. Certainly, in real games, a losing player will almost certainly have made mistakes, but working out what those mistakes were becomes difficult, and requires great analysis."
https://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21317&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

[Norfleet]

Also I said that you miss all of those, while all the enemies hit. I don't think I need to explain how unlikely that is.

Practically a certainty, because there's an effectively infinite number of enemies, so it doesn't matter how many times it doesn't happen, while it only has to happen once to trash your game.

 

[Norfleet]

After all, the benefit of fair skewing (as in, the enemy gets the same treatment) is that it doesn't really change the balance of the game in anyone's favor - and therefore disabling it doesn't, either.

This is not actually true. Anything which symmetrically tilts the odds in favor of both sides benefits enemies far more than the player, because there are way more enemies than players. If players get bumped to 100% chance to hit, this is nice but not a gamechanger. If enemies get the same thing, all levels become extremely lethal as it is no longer possible to utilize any defenses to not be hit, so you will just exchange kills at a highly unfavorable rate because you are always outnumbered until you are dead.

 

[thesheeep]

After all, the benefit of fair skewing (as in, the enemy gets the same treatment) is that it doesn't really change the balance of the game in anyone's favor - and therefore disabling it doesn't, either.

This is not actually true. Anything which symmetrically tilts the odds in favor of both sides benefits enemies far more than the player, because there are way more enemies than players. If players get bumped to 100% chance to hit, this is nice but not a gamechanger. If enemies get the same thing, all levels become extremely lethal as it is no longer possible to utilize any defenses to not be hit, so you will just exchange kills at a highly unfavorable rate because you are always outnumbered until you are dead.

Skewing doesn't suddenly make enemies more deadly than they make the player. Maybe in theory, but definitely not in practice.

Like the player, a mechanic like that would only trigger rarely - its purpose is not balance, but avoidance of frustration without affecting balance much or at all. It is a very, very small change (with a very big effect on frustration).

So let's say a player is outnumbered 3-to-1.
Let's also say that 7/10 hits would get translated to 8/10 hits due to skewing (that would be some pretty extreme skewing, way more than I'd advocate, but lower numbers are easier to digest for this example).
We'll see further down why this is not even actually the case

So the player would get one extra hit per 10 shots - while the enemy would get: Exactly the same, because the skewing is fair.
There are, however, more enemies, so the enemies get more shots in than the player?
No, not really. In the vast majority of games, you do not fight the entire map at the same time. Instead you fight enemy groups one after another. Your guys will rack up way more shots than any enemy unit and probably even more if you count the total per faction.
So if there was indeed a balance change due to that, it would appear to be in favor of the player.

But let's go ahead anyway and assume you fight 3-to-1 enemies all at the same time.
If things were otherwise fair, you'd be dead - and that is without skewing.
But things are not fair in such a scenario, they are stacked in favor of the player, because you generally want the player to win.
The AI is less smart than the player, making suboptimal choices by design.
The player's units will be stronger than the enemy units (because otherwise, such a scenario would not be winnable to begin with) and that likely includes higher hit chances - meaning enemies don't actually go from 7 to 8/10, more like from 3/10 to 3.44/10. So assuming everyone gets one shot per turn, you'd get the player to 8 hits from 7, while you'd get the enemies to 10.32 from 9.
Does that seem "extremely lethal" to you?

I would agree skewing makes combat deadlier overall (if only by such a small degree it can be ignored IMO).
But it definitely doesn't do so to the detriment of the player - and honestly, even if it did, that could easily be remedied by decreasing the skewing bonus for enemies.
If at all, even if applied fairly, it would seem it is actually more favorable towards the player in practice - even if enemies get the same bonus, since games are already favorable towards the player to begin with.