(B) edit the masterlist.yaml locally to remove the rule.delete your local copy of the masterlist.yaml).īut then you would only have the default group and sorting.Īnd none of the other information such as cleaning, compatibility, patch messages. Is there a way to remove the loadAfter entry from my local LOOT? Then you'll get a sorting error when both CACO - Ordinator Patch and YOT - Imperious Patch are in a group before Imperious and Ordinator. If Imperious -> Ordinator after rule is removed and both are still in the same group. Imperious -> YOT - Imperious Patch -> Ordinator -> CACO - Ordinator Patch It's necessary to prevent sorting errors within the core group if separate mods outside that group are set to load after both Imperious and Ordinator Hi this loadAfter in the master list necessary or could it be changed? If I can help in any way, please don't hesitate to ask! □ Thanks for creating and maintaining LOOT, it's an invaluable tool in my modding toolchain. This could be a possible addition to the masterlist. Apachii edits the races for a cosmetic change, so Apachii herself recommends that Imperious should be loaded after Apachii (Apachii_DivineEleganceStore_Patch.esp). Imperious conflicts with Apachii Divine Elegance Store.Is this loadAfter in the master list necessary or could it be changed? Alternatively, is there a way to remove the loadAfter entry from my local LOOT? I realize that this is an extreme edge case, but sadly there is no ability to deactivate loadAfter metadata with user metadata (afaik). Imperious is thus far down in the load order for me, while Ordinator is relatively high up. I'm following the Nordic Guide and have created LOOT groups for each sensible category appearing in Nordic. This loadAfter entry in the master list actually introduces an error in my case. Ordinator is set to load after Imperious in the master list "to avoid cyclic errors." Imperious and Ordinator are compatible in either order, however, as they don't conflict in any record (I've checked in SSEEdit).Hey! I've noticed two inconsistencies with the Imperious mod:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |