Those are two completely different types of combatants that operate in different mediums haha
The invention of the aircraft carrier pretty much killed large ships overnight (although it took a couple years for people to understand this fact). So I rest my case: air power dominates the naval battlefield, and even though they're different in nature, it's still a case of a handful of small crafts taking down a much bigger one*. It doesn't make ground and naval forces obsolete, but it pretty much strongly influenced the way they work. Even if it didn't, the fact that weapons technology has outpaced passive defenses by a tremendous amount means that large ships are no longer interesting, because they're not that much harder to sink than small ships. Also, tactical nuclear weapons mean that WWI-style fleets are too easy to get rid of. Put too many expensive large ships in one area and they'll be taken care of with one low-yield nuclear weapon (even low-yield nukes still *vaporize* things too close to the detonation point, and there aren't many defenses against phase transitions

)
And rather than RIB taking down large ships, I'd have said monitors/patrol boats, or even corvettes/frigates. And you know what? They can. An Exocet or two will sink any Battlecruiser as easily as a corvette.
So yeah, I'd rather not see "bigger is better". Bigger should give more tactical options, but combined arms, consistency of strategy, and adaptation to the situation should be the key elements.
*Fictionnal space battles usually borrow from both naval and air battles. Small spacecrafts are akin to planes, large spacecrafts are more like ships.