This has been the general tendency of the system development in recent times. For every new system added, like Omega-2, there were at least two systems axed before. Gallia itself has been reduced by almost half its size. The result of this is obviously less content, but the aim is to reduce content so that players have less space that could be between them. It is supposed to facilitate ingame interaction by forcing people closer together. This approach to system development works with the idea that less can be more, because the fun part about the game is not flying through space, but flying through it with other player. And besides, empty systems aren't going to be missed by anyone anyway, since they were, well, unused. From this argument follows that the idea of adding new systems would need to be measured against this ideal, because new systems would mean more space that could keep players apart.

This does not necessarily mean that systems will be removed, but rather that there is a general tendency towards reductionism rather than conservation or expansion of content.

So in summary:

• Less systems means players congregate in the remaining systems, increasing likelihood of encounters.
  
• Unused systems will not be missed since they had no purpose to begin with.
  
• From this follows that handling of new systems needs to be handled carefully, as they counteract the aim of reducing space to condense players.
  

A second approach to the question that I have heard from people was to keep them, but reduce the amount of system connections that they have to one, making them a dead-end system. This would mean that the system would still be there and that roleplay around it could still be conducted, as well as not conflicting with already written roleplay (retcons). By reducing the ways by which people can enter and exit a system, you create choke points that players need to pass through, thus naturally encouraging encounters. Content is what makes the game worth playing. Removing it makes the game less attractive. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. By removing a system that is mostly devoid of players, you don't create more encounters, but only make it so there is less content to the game. If people didn't visit these systems before, that does not mean they will then magically encounter one another elsewhere where they hadn't met before anyway.

In summary:

• Not necessarily more systems, but rearranging the system connections so that players are naturally required to pass choke points and thus encounter players. This would mean giving systems that are candidates for removal only one entry and exit.
  
• Less uncertainty about conducting roleplay in or about a system, as there is no fear of it being made obsolete.
  
• Removing perfectly functional content is seen as a last resort option. Conservation of content is prioritized in order to not lobotomize the game.
  
• A system that had no visitors does not contribute to the number of encounters with its removal, since people, well, did not meet there.
  
• By extension of the logic in the first point, new systems would need to be considered with choke points in mind so as to encourage encounters of players.
  

This is where I will be listing opinions that do not fit under the ones outlined above. If they do, I will add opinions and additional points raised to the abovementioned opinions.

Querious argues for a combination method of those outlined above.

Commissar SnakeLancer™ argues for the reduction of buffer systems. Too many system connections cause players to scatter and so reducing them would naturally squeeze players into encounters.

Sand_Spider argues for more one-way systems similar to Kansas-Unknown-Penny. This seems like a variation of the idea of creating choke points by having systems with one entry and one exit.

Tenacity argues for the reduction in system count drastically to have fewer systems that were not originally part of vanilla Freelancer.

This is where I will write a conclusion of the discussion once a certain amount of time has passed during which the thread has gotten no replies anymore. If it even gets replies, since this is a lot of text.