Thexelnaga, I think I understand your point that people would most likely accept hidden bonuses over systems that do not stack up effectiveness as efficiently as implied at first facing.
For instance, to make a Diablo 2 reference, would one prefer to have 37% critical strike or rather 20% critical strike + 20% deadly strike on your equipment? Critical strike and deadly strike essentially work the same by doubling physical damage, so one would think the second option would be better, but the way D2 stacks them, combining critical strike and deadly strike as above is equivalent to having 36% critical strike (0.8*0.8 chance of no double damage), which is inferior. Essentially, this is a hidden penalty, and such things annoy players.
The breakpoint systems in D2 were essentially hidden penalties.
Though more tolerable, hidden bonuses can also make players feel a bit betrayed. To those that figure out the way to work the system, sure, they enjoy their advantage. But others can be left wondering why what they are trying is not as effective, as the information given to them is incomplete and inaccurate.
I do not think it is a psychologically healthy system to have either hidden penalties or hidden bonuses that players privileged with access to hidden information can take advantage of. If any information is presented to players in-game, it must be as accurate as possible.
Of course, if they want to exclude specifics (such as using descriptions such as "greatly increased attack speed" rather than "40% increased attack speed"), then by all means have at it. But if you say that a players attack seed is increased by 40%, that better occur.
It's pronounced "See-Pee-Slow" :-P
Q u o t e: Or... we could just throw the baby and the bathwater into a volcano and then nuke the volcano.