Frequency. About a dozen years ago, I studied the parables of Jesus with a view to discovering the most important topics by counting how many parables discussed each subject. Among the topics I studied were money, heaven and hell. For heaven, I included all talk of eternal life and reward after death. For hell, I counted all references to judgment. Thus my categories are broader than yours, but should be helpful. The references to heaven, the kingdom of heaven and reward occurred in a little over half the parables. So did the references to hell and judgment. However, the count of the parables that spoke of heaven was a little higher than that for hell and judgment. Thus I would say that hell is NOT spoken of more than heaven.
This analysis, of course, neglects the non-parable statements of Jesus (a minority of his sayings) and Jesus' words in Revelation, which veer towards judgment.
(Editor: The following refers to content that was removed from the Question. See the original version thereof for relevant context.)
Annihilationism. Since you mention annihilationism in your question, here is a thought. Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) God constructed the universe in a particular way, and that includes what death is and is not. The universe was constructed in such a way that Jesus could lay down his life and take it up again. His offering of his unspotted person in sacrifice was the greatest act of love in all history. However, if someone were to be able to offer themself to be annihilated and cease forever to be so as to rescue someone else from judgment, then would that not be a greater sacrifice than what Jesus gave? For this reason, I do not believe that the annihilation of souls is possible. God designed our beings and this world so as to make it impossible. Otherwise, to make the greatest possible sacrifice for sinners would have required the permanent cessation of existence of the Son of God, rupturing the Trinity and destroying the universe, thus destroying all people and saving none. That would create a logical impossibility. Therefore annihilationism is logically impossible. Whatever the ultimate state of the reprobate is, that is not the solution to your dilemma. It seems that even the apostle Paul wished that he could make some such sacrifice for his countrymen, but knew it to be impossible:
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears
me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and
unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were
accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my
kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:1-3)
Two missions. Back to the relative frequency of Jesus' statements, we must distinguish between the two missions: the incarnation and earthly life of Jesus during his first coming and the his return in glory at his second coming. The first coming was to announce salvation and to make the payment that purchased it for all who believe. The second coming of Christ also addresses salvation, as the ultimate salvation of the righteous will occur then, but the main preoccupation of Revelation is the judgment of the wicked. Thus the two poles of salvation and damnation vary in terms of emphasis according to what time it is in salvation history. Inferring too much from the frequency of how often Jesus spoke about matters is unwise, because as the times and seasons flow through history, so does the focus of God in how he interacts with mankind vary.
