No, it was not. Yes, you had control over your own accuracy. Yes, you could always choose if you wanted to be 100% accurate, a bit faster and 95% accurate, even more faster and 90% accurate, or very fast and, say, 70% accurate. But you could never, ever choose or know how accurate and fast your opponent would be. Sure, you could always guarantee that each and every one of your shots hit, that you had 100% accuracy. But you could always run into an opponent relying a bit on their luck, and deciding to shoot slightly faster at 90% accuracy. What happens when you meet? Most likely? They win, because they shoot faster than you and still have a relatively low chance of failing a shot. You [i]will[/i] go down the same path because the reality of it is that shooting at 100% accuracy is not the optimal way to shoot. You will lose to anyone injecting at least a bit more luck to their shots. How low will you go? You have to go lower than the opponent to beat them in speed. 88%? 85? 80? What's the most optimal rate of fire? The one at which you still beat a player shooting at 100% accuracy more than 50% of the time? The problem with bloom is that the most optimal rate of fire is one that makes you lose nearly half of the time against a player who has a 100% accuracy, but still win most of the time to have the slightest of advantage. But is it a matter of skill anymore when you will lose 45 times out of 100? Ultimately, someone can always come and kill you at a lower than optimal rate of fire? And what about when you don't run into players firing at 100% accuracy, but using the same optimal method as you? The bottom line is: [b]there is no way, no matter how perfect shot you are, that you will beat an opponent 100% of the time in an encounter provided you start shooting first. The opponent can always sacrifice accuracy for speed and kill you with 70% skill and 30% luck.[/b] No, having to rely on luck does not empower the player.