I agree with Vanshilar's points re: data and numbers being the best way to determine if ships are strong or not. That said, I want to highlight one sentence:
...
The Conquest is just doing miles better compared with anything else I've seen at killing double Ordos.
...
Vanshilar's extensive testing is in a specific set of circumstances that have been laid out in detail for anyone else to replicate and try. In particular: they are fighting a particular type and size of enemy that they
vastly overmatch. No double Ordo comes close to being a threat to the fleets that are being fielded here and will after the initial engagement be streaming in piecemeal to be focused-fired down by multiple ships at a time. Maybe a lucky alpha radiant or nova will pounce on something every once in a while, but not likely with how severe the overmatch is. Because ordos are the strongest current threats (bar a few specific fights), they also vastly overmatch every bounty fleet. Every single fleet under consideration here is beyond the power curve of the game.
In that kind of scenario, winning is not a measure of success because every fleet in contention can win, easily. So how do you define the metric for "better"? DPS is a good one and makes sense. But that's not the only metric that could be used.
One could also define a measure such as "fleet that takes the least hull damage" or "fleet that consumes the least supplies" (we've seen some fun competitions there) etc. Or one could change the parameters and say 'ok, we can kill 2 ordos with ease, but how MANY ordos can we kill?' Again, we saw a whole series on 5,6 full ordo bashing, then amped up to weird mono-fleet designs for fun. DPS isn't the only metric, but it is one that can be measured, which is good.
Otoh: I think the disconnect that people are having is that this is, at its heart, measuring how fast a force can club down inferior enemies. But that's not the situation
most people find themselves in. The majority of the game is not fully optimized, S modded, and perfect-officered 240 DP fleets vs a comparatively easy enemy, because they lack either the in game resources (ships, weapons, officers, S points, skills, etc) or the skill/knowledge to do it. People's (unscientific, unquantified) experience of what is 'good' doesn't match the careful measurements and optimization here because the premises are different. In a game as complex as this, a ship that is good in one circumstance might be bad in another and different things are being optimized over.
As an example: SO. I completely agree that it is good in the early/mid game and falls off late game (for most ships, there are a few that like it more than others thanks to its peculiarities, even if none are meta). However, if most player experiences are
in the early game and midgame, then why is it a surprise for people to report it as overpowered?
Contrast vs one of the current best endgame destroyers: Escort package HIL+IR Lance Sunder. Yes, not meta for DPS, but performs very well in endurance matches. Vs a swarm of pirate hounds where the player is outfielded (not out-massed in total fleet, but actually on the field) 5:1 in the early or mid game, an SO Hammerhead is going to outperform that ship 100% of the time (and fall flat on its face later).
Another example: Monitor. It does bupkiss for DPS, but it can be a critical addition to fleets to let them win hard fights. Also, I hate it and it should die. Monitorago delenda est!
? 300 dps, 37.5 penetration, 1300 range, turns off any time an ally sneezes nearby) maybe that would work!
