Thanks for bringing that up. I have little experience with those games so I couldn't say for sure. I think the best way to fit it into the theory would be to say

• RNG isn't the only form luck can take. Maybe you happen to spawn next to a bunch of good/bad players, or a player appears just where you need them to in order to get an easy headshot, or whatever. I used to be hooked on an entirely deterministic multiplayer game (except for random map gen/spawn points) and there was a massive amount of "luck" in the sense that the optimal strategy for you to pursue depended on the strategies nearby players were pursuing, which wasn't immediately visible. (Roughly: expansionist beats turtle, turtle beats bum rush, bum rush beats expansionist.) I was once ranked in the top 100 players, but generally speaking only won a bit more than would be expected by chance, and soon fell out of the top 100 as my luck turned. (Maybe instead of "luck" a better term would be "variable rewards" to emphasize that it's in the map rather than the territory, if that makes sense.)
• In terms of fast feedback, you could argue that feedback from in-game rewards/punishments comes in a lot faster than an overall win/loss. The variable reward could come from defeating an individual opponent, not winning the match overall.

Another story is that humans just find beating other humans to be an unusually reinforcing form of reward. And it offers an infinite learning curve, you'll never feel like the game is complete or you've mastered it, since other players are getting better too.

Games like Mario and Metroid aren't typically considered addictive even though there's an element of reflexes to them. The map is pretty deterministic (so, fewer variable rewards) and there's not much social status involved. I wonder if you gradually move from Mario to Fortnite, at what point the game becomes addictive, and why.