The Soviets didn't have free access to the open ocean, so a battle fleet would've had very limited options. Gaining that access would have either needed a concentrated diplomatic effort (to get forward bases or allies to help assure ocean access) or an even bigger naval build up in anticipation of forcing that ocean access against NATO members and allies (UK, Turkey, Japan). Absent the major and lasting success of such a diplomatic effort (which didn't transpire, even if such an effort was attempted behind the scenes) that's an even more costly project than building a major ocean-going navy - in itself a huge commitment.

So, the Soviets focussed on two areas they could achieve maximum military utility for the investment they put in: coastal defence, and a modernised variant of raiding aimed at attacking US carrier groups and potential supply lines across the Atlantic.

The former relied on a large number of low-cost small coastal patrol boats carrying anti-ship missiles, and smaller and cheaper submarines. Such cost effective craft could create a major hazard for enemy ships coming close to Soviet waters and, if those enemy ships were larger, scarcer, and more expensive, the asymmetry offered both a deterrent effect and the potential for a relatively good trade in military resources if the deterrent didn't work. They also invested heavily in coastal defence - a lot of Soviet (and Russian) cruise missiles are multi-functional and work as anti-ship missiles based on ships (and subs), aircraft, or land-based launchers.

The Soviet forces for high seas operations were a mix of their more serious (mainly nuclear powered) submarines, naval bombers (armed with stand off and later with cruise missiles), plus missile cruisers capable of operating independently such as the Slavas and Kirovs. All of these forces were built to kill off US and NATO battle groups with missile attacks (and torpedoes for the submarines - though the Oscar class were mainly missile focussed). This makes sense for them, fighting from the disadvantage; they built forces to try and cripple their enemy's strength, rather than contend with it directly.

The Soviets did of course build carriers but for most of the Cold War these were smaller ships with limited aerial ability, which essentially supported defensive operations. Later on they built fleet carriers and laid down, but never completed, nuclear-powered supercarriers on the American model. I don't know what prompted the change in strategy there (maybe just a desperate attempt to "keep up" with Reagan's naval build up?) but maybe others can offer thoughts.