Not even going to do them 40 times, 4 was enough, statistics wouldn't change, as see no reason for wasting my time on opening 3/4 of empty cans.
Is like another failure from CCP like "customs office giving away to NC corp" instead of reassigning them to system owning corporation by claim.

After patch were done 4 radar open space sites in Angel area. The drop from all 4 of them was pathetic and 3/4 of cans were totally empty . Comparing to the pre-patch drop, it was almost close to the usual drop from one anomaly, as at least one item was found in can.
Why to nerf the sites that were non profitable pre-patch and now became a total FAIL!
Where is the result of your significant work you have done on "improving and increasing the drop"?
Better rollback to where it was pre-patch..

Not even going to do them 40 times, 4 was enough, statistics wouldn't change, as see no reason for wasting my time on opening 3/4 of empty cans.
Is like another failure from CCP like "customs office giving away to NC corp" instead of reassigning them to system owning corporation by claim.

After patch were done 4 radar open space sites in Angel area. The drop from all 4 of them was pathetic and 3/4 of cans were totally empty . Comparing to the pre-patch drop, it was almost close to the usual drop from one anomaly, as at least one item was found in can.
Why to nerf the sites that were non profitable pre-patch and now became a total FAIL!
Where is the result of your significant work you have done on "improving and increasing the drop"?
Better rollback to where it was pre-patch..

nerf, buff, nerf, buff, nerf, buff...who cares what they did. Adapt and survive.

Plus, not only would you need a ridiculously large sample size, you'd need to have data from everyone running the sites, not just yourself before you can say exploration is broken :P

Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, it's always the same few characters posting negative sarcastic replies with no proof to contradict the claims of the OP.

I agree with the OP and see no reason to do 100, 1000 or even a million Radar sites.. 10 sites is more than enough to ascertain a basic conclusion.

Since the expansion there is indeed a big difference in the amount of loot gained and the amount of cans holding loot in the Radar sites.. Basically it's now about 1/3rd that has loot whereas before the expansion it was about 2/3rds that would have loot.

This is something that's easily noticed and doesn't require completing 1000's of sites to confirm.

I've been hit by the various exploration glitches where everybody kept saying I was crazy because sites weren't spawning, and a month later CCP will confirm there's an issue and I've wasted the last month bothering to explore.

Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, it's always the same few characters posting negative sarcastic replies with no proof to contradict the claims of the OP.

I agree with the OP and see no reason to do 100, 1000 or even a million Radar sites.. 10 sites is more than enough to ascertain a basic conclusion.

Since the expansion there is indeed a big difference in the amount of loot gained and the amount of cans holding loot in the Radar sites.. Basically it's now about 1/3rd that has loot whereas before the expansion it was about 2/3rds that would have loot.

This is something that's easily noticed and doesn't require completing 1000's of sites to confirm.

Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, it's always the same few characters posting negative sarcastic replies with no proof to contradict the claims of the OP.

Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, its always the same character white knighting them...And try reading the op. He didn't do 10, he did 4, with 3 out of 4 cans being empty. Pretty standard. Additionally, its not on us to contradict the OP. Its on the OP to provide substantial evidence that there might be an issue for us to take him seriously and consider the possibility that there is something wrong. None of us want exploration to be broken. Thus, if there is a serious and evident problem, we will address it. Unfortunately, most of the time its people like the op with evidence like 3 out 4 cans in 1 site. You really think thats valid reason to come to the forums complaining about a possible nerf?

Also, lol at your anecdotal "1/3" post patch and "2/3" pre patch observations.

That's because the OP never provides any proof himself GÇö just a completely insignificant sample that tells us exactly nothing.

The sarcasm comes from the fact that this abject failure to understand even the basics of random distribution keeps showing up, no matter how often people explain it. It's particularly warranted in this case since the OP comes back and explains that he has no interest in understanding the issue and thus refuses to provide any proof to actually support his silly claim.

Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, its always the same character troll posting them correcting...

What's silly is people saying they know for a fact that CCP hasn't reduced the amount of cans containing loot and rationalize it with the pretense of random distribution 'working as intended' when there's actually a noticeable decline.

Please inform us what you think a significant sample size is?

Please inform us what you think a significant sample size is?

How many different sites are there?
How many cans do each of them have?
How many of each have you run before the patch?

Nice of you to post all that other nonsense while sidestepping the most important question.