People will very quickly form impressions about the game mechanics whether they're right or wrong. As others have pointed out, the level of transparency only influences how correct those impressions are. This is true of nearly all players.
What we're talking about are the players who are "elitists" and impose their expectations of performance on others (despite the fact that these people by any psychological measure actually take their pleasure from being better than others, so why they want others to be comparable to them is a mystery itself). So take the above phenomenon and apply it to those people. The result is the same-- it's just that now they expect you to conform to standards that are less verifiable in their validity.
It's a nice thought to imagine that these people would have the sense to say, "Well, we don't really know the effects because of the lack of transparency, so there's no point in passing judgments." But that's missing the point of these people's goals-- to be better. And you can't evaluate yourself as "better" if you don't use some kind of metric, no matter how dubious it is.
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...
Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.
Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.