If I'm interested in acquiring a given enhancement, I'm not interested in differentiating between "Can I make the game generate one?" and "Can I acquire one in a way other than having the game generate on?". I'm simply interested in "How can I get it?".
This right here is where the article diverts from objectivity and brevity; both things that we want to maintain on the wiki. On the technical level, answering the question "how can I put one in my hands?" will, at best, produce hypothetical fluff that is not focused on just the simple facts like it should be. This is what I'm trying to avoid.
Let's try an analogy.
Long ago I was watching an episode of Bill Nye The Science Guy, but I don't remember what it was about... But! There was this old footage that looked to be from the 1950s of a city boy in a supermarket being asked some questions by a reporter. "Where does food come from?" the reporter would ask. "Well, from the supermarket," the boy replies. "And where does the supermarket get its food?" "Um... from... a bigger supermarket!" "Have you ever seen a cow?" "Well sure!.. On television."
In this Enhancement context, the conversation would look something like this: "Where do Enhancements come from?" "Well, from other players." "And where do other players get them?" "Um... from... yet more players!" "Have you ever seen a Recipe?" "Well sure!.. At Wentworth's."
It's begging the question. It's prolonging the issue. It's beating around the bush. Trading with other players is simply not
an appropriate "how to get" method.
What we're looking at are attributes, not tasks. If it can be traded, that's a property. If it's account bound, that's a property. If it can be converted, that's a property. If you have to complete the trial assigned by Woodsman to get one, that's not