If you have
a. A lot of different devices to hack (f.i. multiple cameras and Maglocks along your team´s pathway) and
b. Other things to do in the host (like Datasteals),
going in for reduced noise and lowered defences might be the better option. You´re right, though: The incentive to actually enter the host could be higher than that; And with industry hosts, it´s even lower. I´m still not thrilled about this design decision, TBH.
There´s a deeper problem than just maths and probabilities at play here, though. As a GM, I experienced a lot of reluctance to enter hosts at my tables, because mingling around in a host can get not only dangerous, but also pretty damn
annoying once IC comes into play. Get caught, and you face a (usually boring and repetitive) pseudo-combat while the rest of the group is disengaged. In fact, I´ve yet to see an actual combat sequence between hackers and IC, because the hackers usually just log out asap when they get caught. And that´s mostly
not because of the danger, but because of the eyerolls from the other players at the table. Even if you stay hidden, you are pestered by the Patrol IC, which requires a lot of GM calls and, if played strictly by the core rules, needs to constantly have its Initiative tracked. The fact that the defense mechanisms in a host are exclusively proactive is the biggest problem when it comes to host interaction and Gameplay pacing IMO.
(I cooked up a bunch of ideas for "passive IC" to combat this specific problem, though. I will post them soon as part of my houserule series
)