As mentioned above, I'm still quite new to the Goko System and their ratings.
My first impression of the rating system is that it's actually quite good. Swingy, but good.
Yesterday I started at 7K, then dropped to 6.6K and eventually climbed back up to 7K.
Quite a gap, but I haven't played that many games yet so I can understand this.
However, their good rating system can only function properly if they implement some kind of matching system.
Both on Iso and on Goko I always tried to play the highest ranked person I could find. That's more fun and as a bonus it's better for my rating.
When I play against someone approximately 300 points below me, I'm supposed to win something between 55% and 60% to maintain rating.
When I play against someone about 2000 points below me, I need to win about 80%.
Although both are doable, there's no fun in the second. I used the word 'need' on purpose, and I don't like what it does to me. I either 'do what I'm supposed to do' or 'I lose'.
And... I can't imagine there's much fun for the other player either.
Well, the rating only exists so that you might find players of equal skill. Playing someone of equal skill is fun if you can sometimes still learn something or have a real nail biter where small details matter a lot.
But with Dominion, there's so much randomness that when you're playing someone of comparable skill the game is most likely decided on shuffle luck instead of keen tactics. If you play a chess match against someone rated 100 points below you on the ELO system, say you're 1700 playing a 1600, you could win close to 100% of the games, simply because you know everything the 1600 knows and a bit more.
The rating system on Goko uses 4 significant digits and a ladder, corrupting the system in my view. If you create a ladder, you're making players play just for their rating instead of the fun the game offers. I think it's wrong that people should be worried about dropping any levels on a ladder over such a simple game. A ladder makes people scared of losing and stops innovation.
What I would have liked to see is just one significant digit or even one half and no ladder. Rate the players 1-5 stars or something. This way you can use the rating the way it was intended: To find players of similar skill.
The way the ladder affects you is in fact a choice, and I don't agree with it.
I'm not scared to try something new at all. Sometimes it makes me lose and that's ok. Usually my opponent is happy enough for the both of us.
Trying out new things or combo's I haven't seen before is the main reason I like playing this game.
Besides: if I lose a game I could have won, then my rating is temporarily a little bit lower then it's supposed to be. Future games will automatically compensate.
The only way my rating goes up in the long run is if I get better.
Although I like being on top of the leaderboard, I apparently care less about rating then you do. Yes, there is a lot of randomness in Dominion. However, there also are a lot of decisions. And those decisions have a huge impact on your chances. I see a lot of people blaming their bad luck where in fact they just played poorly. When I lose a game of Dominion, I almost always can find a point where I made a bad decision myself. And when I can't, I'm just not smart enough. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I'm yet to play a game of Dominion where I don't make any mistakes. This game is a lot more complicated then most people seem to realize.
Blaming your bad luck after the game kills your learning process.
Blaming your bad luck during the game stops you from 'making the best of you bad position'.
Blaming your bad luck in the chat isn't any fun for your opponent.
Really, there's barely ever any point in whining about bad luck.
...unless there is a need to save your own ego, which is both understandable and human.