Rating of a player significantly impacts how dominance and place(1st-7th finish) points are calculated.

If everyone is the same elo rating then the vaules will almost always (depending on dominance) be positive points for the top 3 players, possibly 4, and generally negative for the rest.

However, if your rating is vastly higher than others then you have ti finish significantly better just to break even, and very well (top 2 or top3 to gain points).

Translation?

a 1732 player, playing vs all 1500 rated players likely has to come in 3rd or even 2nd to get +2 or +0 and break even, whereas a 1505 player vs 1500 rated players likely has to just come in 4th.

This is why it is sooo friggin hard to get to the highest rating in the game, because after a while you gain +17 for first place finishes with great dominance, and lose -17 for coming in 4th with an 'average' performance.

My guess is, you were the highest rating at the game you played in this example, and also that your dominance was not as great as you think it was. (dominance doesnt start 'counting' your average size until a few rounds into the game).

another thing, you said you played fairly aggressively..

keep in mind that dominance takes into consideration how many lands you manage to retain control of when it is your turn.

This means that if you spread like wildfire and get 11 lands early that this means nothing to help your dominance. What DOES help your dominance is if the 6 other players take their turn and youve managed to keep 10 or 11 lands. However, if you lose all that you gained when you spread out aggressively, then your dominance will actually be pretty poor. (it counts your kingdoms average size, or how many lands you have at the START of your turn, not after you finish a move).