You're dealing with a random number generator. As a software developer, I can say with confidence that implementing RNG is very easy.

I can tell you that you have never made a random number generator, if you have you wouldn't make that statement because there is no such thing as a true random number generator. They all have a bias the only question is can you live with the inherent bias.

Try to reduce the snark.

*You misread my statement.* I said "

implementing RNG is very easy"

The reason I said that is

*almost every programming language has a number of built-in rng functions*. And if these are not adequate for your needs, there are a number of

*publicly available* crypto rng functions which are much more robust, easily available and have a much less predictable pattern.

I have built a program using computerized rng to roll 2 six-sided dice, and tally up how often different results came up. To do this, I didn't have to write my own RNG, I used one that was already available. It's a safe bet that rather than re-write an RNG from scratch, the Hero engine uses some already created package. Therefore, it is easily implemented.

In my craps program (above) I compared these results to published and known probabilities of craps rolls. The larger the sample size, the close the computer rng game to published probability.

What does this mean?

Given a large enough sample size, computerized RNG can match actual probability.
This point, which you have yet to acknowledge, is 100% applicable here. Why is it applicable? Because SW:TOR is a computer game, and is using some sort of software-based RNG to calculate reverse engineering success.

If you are trying to posit "Reverse Engineering is not 20%" you need a larger sample size. Savvy?