Idea: Detect patches by master dependency on flagged overhauls

[focustense]

The whole "disable patches first" thing is proving to be very difficult for at least some subset of users, either due to confusion over what constitutes an "overhaul patch" or just general difficulty with the mechanics of it, especially in Vortex.

In some interim version, probably 0.3, the detection on overhaul mods was improved so that overhauls themselves could never be detected as default plugins. The detection uses some heuristics (% of faces, % of only faces, etc.) but seems to be quite reliable.

One thing that was never looked at as a follow-up to that was extending this into patches. It just hadn't come up as a major issue at the time. However, if a visual overhaul should never be selected as default, then it logically follows that a patch for that overhaul should not be selected as the default either.

I doubt the detection here is perfect... but it might be just good enough to drop the whole "no patches" thing if it catches 99% or 95% of the problem-plugins. The whole reason for anti-patching is just to prevent them from ending up as defaults, and if we can prevent it a different way that doesn't require any manual work, then the process can be made a lot easier. Which is of course the whole idea.

If the detection is almost perfect but not quite, a few broad-targeted manual overrides could help smooth over the rest. For example, in addition to implementing #17, add a feature somewhere to "remove from defaults" that would cut out an entire plugin from all NPCs using it. Or, some type of "soft reset" feature that could allow users to identify patches in the load order or just any mods they want removed - i.e. rather than doing it one at a time. It's not good if these hack-fixes become a core part of the workflow, but if they just deal with a few strange edge cases, they're more palatable design-wise.

[focustense]

Adding one refinement to the detection: check if the "master overhaul" actually edits the specific NPC before passing over it. Some mod authors are referring to actual mod expansions as "patches" - i.e. extending overhauls to game expansions and new followers. They are giving themselves too little credit. More importantly, this will confuse users being asked to disable patches. So if a mod happens to depend on an overhaul, but is editing an entirely new NPC, don't think of it as a "patch".

[focustense]

Got two issues around this so I'll keep #51 open, which is more about labeling them. Current release is pretty good at identifying and avoiding them.