Usability of 4-A Elden Ring profiles

[Qawsedf234]

What this thread is not covering:

• Radahn's star feat: Its already agreed on being used as a possibly rating
• Ranni/Rennela's starry field: Agreed on it just being an illusion with no real evidence that the location took place in any real space

What this thread is covering:

• The Elden Beast roaring and then the environment changing to some place with multiple Erdtrees and a sky with visible nebula

To summarize the major arguments used in another thread

From me

• The tier would come from the Elden Beast when it distorts the area of the Erdtree and you go to a dimension with nebula and hundreds of stars in the background. The dimension also vanishes upon the defeat of the Elden Beast. As such, it would scale to the generic Starry Dimension calc.
• It should be noted that Ranni's ending also features a similar aspect with her creating a moon with stars within it as she separates the Earth from the influence of Outer Gods. and her dialogue in the Japanese version explicitly mentions shoving the stars away from the Earth so they could no longer influence the people there.
• The trailers for the game, which are seemingly still canon, mention the Elden Ring controlling the stars

From @DarkGrath

Here's my take on this stuff.

The Elden Beat 4-A feat is not definitive, and not something I'd give a full tier on based on so little context, but I could at least defend giving it a "possibly 4-A" rating. I think I've heard this feat brought up before, and one of the criticisms of it was that it's possible the Greater Will made the dimension directly, with the Elden Beast being less powerful than the Greater Will due to only being a vassal, suggesting nobody but the Greater Will would scale. This is technically plausible, but I'd consider it rather unlikely; it's made clear in the story that the Greater Will is almost completely detached from any personal involvement in the Lands Between, with it even being stated that a figure as important as the Two Fingers in the Roundtable Hold might take as much as centuries just to find them and get in contact. It seems unreasonable to suggest that the Greater Will was directly responsible for creating this realm when it otherwise has shown itself not to care at all about anything that's going on in the Lands Between. Again, it's not impossible, but it's much more plausible that the Elden Beast would have created this dimension as the Greater Will's vassal. I think "possibly 4-A" would be fine for this.

Undecided on the Ranni thing. I haven't heard anyone mention this feat before, but it seems like it probably supports tier 4 of some kind. I'll look more into it.

I disagree with the "Elden Ring commands the stars" statement. I've heard someone criticise it before by saying that this comes from an old trailer when the game was still in early development and therefore shouldn't be assumed to still be relevant, but I also disagree with this criticism. The statement also appears in one of the Elden Ring artbooks produced by FromSoftware and sold with certain physical copies of the game, so it's not an outdated statement (I don't have a picture of this right on hand, but I recall LobosJr showed off the artbook as well as the quote in one of his Elden Ring videos, so I could find it if need be). My issue with this statement, however, is the fact that it is too vague to give a tiering to, and there are perfectly reasonable explanations for it that wouldn't suggest anything we don't already know. For example, since the Elden Ring defines many of the core tenets of the universe through its runes (from the idea that life and death are separate, to the laws of causality and regression), it's entirely possible that the Elden Ring "commands the stars" in the sense that "even the stars bend to its rules". Before even considering giving this tier 4, I'd like to see an exact interpretation of this quote that supports it being an indicator of tier 4, as well as reasons to believe that interpretation is true.

From @Mr._Bambu

I am severely opposed to 4-A for the Elden Beast. I'm okay with flat High 4-C given the "govern the stars" line. 4-A shit isn't supported at all in game and has contradictory evidence. With Astel at least y'all had lore to theorize with, this is literally just seeing lights in the sky. Hard pass.

I'm good with 4-A since it is like, the whole point of Ranni's plan. I don't know what kind of metaphor you can spin when her ending explicitly shows nebulae converging with her Moon and outright statements from her stating how she will take the sky with her away from Earth so fate won't govern them.

Yes, yes, I've heard the extremely creative interpretation we've concocted here. And yes, I'm aware we will again treat it as gospel. Her ending shows nothing of the sort, though. It does show her moon coming into view (be it figuratively or not), it does show what are probably stars. But there's a couple things that are being ignored, or at least not considered.

The Age of Stars is Ranni superseding the Greater Will. The Moon is not a normal old Moon and we're being hamfisted by ignoring that. It seems most likely that the Moon is an Outer God- after all, the rest of the cosmos are alive, it seems, given the Fallingstars. Not only do we not understand what Ranni is doing, we don't even understand if she's responsible for half the things she's working for, or if it is the actions of this Outer God- given the game's portrayal of the Greater Will, I'd bet the latter.

I want more to work with than vague statements, man. That's all I ever get with these verses nowadays. We used to be better.

My High 4-C suggestion was resultant from individual stars, actually. We don't know the specifics of how it governs 'em, if it does every single one all at once, etc. It ought to be High 4-C. The Elden Beast's dimension is too vague, Ranni's moon has too much context that I find makes it lacking.

My vote is for flat out "High 4-C" or "Likely High 4-C". I don't even think they need to upscale from Radahn, personally.

So the proposals are as follows:

• "At least 7-A (Upscaling from Radahn), possibly 4-A (Elden Beast dimension feat)
• " (Likely) High 4-C (Embodies the Elden Ring which can control and govern the stars)"

We were handling this in another thread but it basically just died to inactivity and I want to get the issue settled.

While other user comments are strictly prohibited, any derailing comment or off topic discussion will be removed.

 

[Qawsedf234]

@Mr._Bambu @DarkGrath @Emirp sumitpo @Sir_Ovens @Wokistan @Zaratthustra

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The 4-A shit is far too unusable due to surrounding context. Even the supporters of it admit that shit's weak as ****. High 4-C is based purely on lore supported info, we should use that.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I'm unsure with the possibly 4-A side of things. I'm on a trip rn so I can't properly comment on that rn.

But as I've stated before, I agree with Darkgrath's take on Elden Beast commanding the stars and I don't think that should be used either.

I'd rather we go with upscaling from Radahn

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm unsure with the possibly 4-A side of things. I'm on a trip rn so I can't properly comment on that rn.

But as I've stated before, I agree with Darkgrath's take on Elden Beast commanding the stars and I don't think that should be used either.

I'd rather we go with upscaling from Radahn

So... "At least 7-A, likely High 4-C"?

 

[Qawsedf234]

But as I've stated before, I agree with Darkgrath's take on Elden Beast commanding the stars

Darkgrath said the 4-A thing was fine as a possibly rating. They disagreed on Ranni being used for evidence.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

To be clear, I can accept just upscaling from Radahn. I don't agree with Ranni or "dimension full of star" stuff. I do think the Elden Ring commanding the stars can be used as a more solid "possibly", but I'm not terribly gung ho about it, especially given it'd give the same tier as just upscaling from Radahn.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

So... "At least 7-A, likely High 4-C"?

Probably so for now.

 

[Antvasima]

If you have reached an agreement, that can probably be applied.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

If you have reached an agreement, that can probably be applied.

We're still waiting for the input of the other members.

 

[Antvasima]

We're still waiting for the input of the other members.

Okay. No problem.

@DarkGrath @Sir_Ovens @Zaratthustra @Wokistan

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Wok is unlikely to reply due to being busy, for the record, and we have thus far worked without his input. It'd be appreciated, of course, I'm just saying we shouldn't hold our breath for his statement.

 

[Zaratthustra]

I would rather go with the Radahn scaling as its more safe compared to the assumption of them beings actual stars in the dimension. It's too vague.

 

[DarkGrath]

Sorry for not seeing the notifications here. I just recently went through wisdom teeth extraction, so I've been resting and avoiding spending time online while recovering.

If there are new arguments to be brought up that haven't been talked about in the original discussion, I'll have to go through them before giving a final verdict. Based just on what I can see right now, though, I believe my opinion is still the same as it was before.

I believe the High 4-C calc for Radahn's feat is contentious, but the calc aside, I still think High 4-C is a perfectly acceptable tiering for the feat. Furthermore, I'm quite willing to say I do believe in the feat's validity. I think High 4-C in some form is a correct tiering for the cast who scale to Radahn, but I'm not picky on whether it's used as a definitive rating or a likely/possibly.

Ranni's stuff is stuff I'm still uncertain about, but I'm generally leaning towards rejecting it over accepting it. It doesn't seem implausible that you'd get some tiering out of it, but I don't think there's enough context for anything to constitute meaningful evidence. I'm willing to hear more on this, if any thorough evidence exists.

I disagree with the statement of "the Elden Ring commands the stars" from the trailers and art book being used as tier 4 evidence. I've given my detailed reasoning before, but my issue with it boils down to the fact that it's vague and that there are perfectly reasonable interpretations of the statement that don't suggest anything to do with tier 4.

I somewhat agree with the Elden Beast's dimension suggesting 4-A, though as mentioned before, I'd not support it as anything more than a possibly rating. To refer back to what I talked about before; from the circumstances provided, I believe saying the Elden Beast created a dimension with a starry sky is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what occurred, and arguably even the most probable one. However, I don't think nearly enough context is provided for us to treat it as though that's the only possibility, or that it had to have occurred that way. Possibly 4-A is the best way I can think to describe a 4-A feat that's quite plausible and reasonable but not definitive.

Everything collected, I'd personally suggest either "At least 7-A, likely High 4-C, possibly 4-A" or "High 4-C, possibly 4-A" for the relevant characters. I'm willing to discuss further if need be, however.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I just recently went through wisdom teeth extraction, so I've been resting and avoiding spending time online while recovering.

Hope you get well

I believe the High 4-C calc for Radahn's feat is contentious, but the calc aside, I still think High 4-C is a perfectly acceptable tiering for the feat. Furthermore, I'm quite willing to say I do believe in the feat's validity. I think High 4-C in some form is a correct tiering for the cast who scale to Radahn, but I'm not picky on whether it's used as a definitive rating or a likely/possibly.

I'm fine with the calc removal tbh, I think the scene where after Radahn dies is meant to provocative of meteors.

At least 7-A, likely High 4-C, possibly 4-A

If we do come to this, I'd prefer we format it as "At least 7-A, possibly High 4-C to 4-A". Makes it more neat.

I agree with the rest of what Darkgrath has to say.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The Elden Beast's supposed dimension has no lore connections (at least, that anybody has come forward with- I sure as **** haven't found anything). The Elden Beast also has celestial object-themed attacks- things that, had they been on the ceiling, would also be considered stars. Nebulae. You know the ones I'm talking about. But we know, objectively, that they're smaller than the PC. I just don't understand why people consider that and then, for no reason, assume the other lights are possibly 4-C in size, solely because they're up on the ceiling and not being thrown at the player.

So yeah, still hard against 4-A based on haha tiny lights up thar

 

[Qawsedf234]

The Elden Beast's supposed dimension has no lore connections (at least, that anybody has come forward with- I sure as **** haven't found anything)

Well it doesn't have a direct statement, but it roared and then the dimension appeared and when it died the dimension vanished.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We're assuming what all of that was without any lore implication, yes. I am fully aware of the proposal.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We're assuming what all of that was without any lore implication

Well we don't really need a lore implication, we see it happen.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well we don't really need a lore implication, we see it happen.

We do need a lore implication to know what we see happen, Qaw. We've had this conversation before. VSBW-itis causes the default assumption, even in spite of mitigating evidence, to be a genuine multi-solar system space creation based on practically nothing. There's no lore implications to handwave the stuff mentioned above. There's fuckall, and people cling to it anyways.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We do need a lore implication to know what we see happen, Qaw.

Not really. We don't have a lore explanation for the sub-dimension the Dino rangers make for example but we still treat it as legitimate. We see the Elden Beast roar, the dimension appears and then it is gone when the Beast is defeated. Its fulfills the listed requirements for creation scaling.

even in spite of mitigating evidence

What mitigating evidence? There's literally nothing else besides visual evidence.

based on practically nothing.

We directly see it happen.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

What mitigating evidence? There's literally nothing else besides visual evidence.

The stellar object look-alikes that the player stands next to. That are smaller than the player. This would at least somewhat imply the random, similar lights above us are also rather small.

We directly see it happen.

You assume what we see happen. You assume the sub-dimension is created in that instant, as opposed to traveling there, to an existent space. This is of course alongside the assertion that lights being on the ceiling are stars.

 

[Chariot190]

The stellar object look-alikes that the player stands next to. That are smaller than the player. This would at least somewhat imply the random, similar lights above us are also rather small.

Actually this is objectively false.
Well for starters, they aren't blatantly small. You can't say "we see it use small-star like objects so the skybox is the same", because they're not, at all.
If you do basic angsizing and assume they're merely as far back as the multi km tall trees (According to Zuli, they're about 4.4km), which, well they obviously are given the trees are in front of them, they end up numerous of meters large, potentially even hundreds of meters, so that alone shows they aren't the same thing the Beast uses to attack next to the player, and that's not taking into account they're not as far back as the trees, they're incomparably further back, meaning they're actually far, far larger.

In which case, if they're not the same size and thus not the same thing it uses in its nebula attack which you're using to say they're small, then what are they? Do you have examples of it making far larger yet still small stars? Because at this point you'd have to prove the objectively different stars aren't actual stars as that's now the default assumption given the discrepancy between the two.

Your example falls flat because we know 100% for a fact they aren't the same based on size contrary to your claim.

For what it's worth though I'd rather just High 4-C via statements instead of 4-A or whatever based on this, while I disagree with your reasoning, it's still a tad vague imo.

Also got permission to post.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think you needed permission to post, though in saying this I realize I will now be swamped by several posts more or less arguing the same thing.

My claim is that we can see things that appear to be stellar objects that are substantially smaller than the real deal, provably, so the other things that appear to be stellar objects have at least a good chance to be smaller, too. My argument wasn't exactly they are the precise same size as the other stellar object look-alikes, just that they're smaller than their legitimate celestial counterparts.

 

[Chariot190]

That isn't how this works.
We know for an absolute fact, without doubt, demonstrably and provably true, that the things in the skybox are magnitudes upon magnitudes larger then what it uses against the player, and that's actively going out of your way to low end it as much as possible by assuming they're only as far back as the trees, which they're not, they're actually far, far further back.

You can't say because this one thing is small that means the other thing that is blatantly not even on the same order of size is also small, if we know they aren't the same size, we can't just assume they're arbitrarily some other random but small size, we need evidence to say it's actually a certain size beyond the default assumption of star be star because the corroborating evidence doesn't actually corroborate it now.
You're unironically making more assumptions and just saying "they're smaller" despite having zero actual evidence as your only evidence to that claim is a blatant false equivalence.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean... I can? I have evidence that things that appear like celestial objects are smaller in this instance. Hell, were Qawsed's fan theory about Astel to be proven true, there'd be even more, even if I think he's wrong. You are adding a layer to the assumption that they are the exact same size.

"Magnitudes larger" yeah, some meters, right? That's what you said. Compared to the actual size of a literal ******* sun I'd say it's a few more magnitudes to that, aye?

Point is, some celestial object lookalikes are provably smaller. We can extrapolate from that that the verse doesn't always handle these things as being properly sized, least of all in this instance. I don't really know or care why you think they need to be the exact same size to make this point valid. We just need to establish a trend. We did that.

 

[Chariot190]

Yeah no, this isn't how it works Bambu, let's make this simple. How big are they are?

You're making the claim they're small, so how small are they? Do you know?

"Magnitudes larger" yeah, some meters, right? That's what you said. Compared to the actual size of a literal ******* sun I'd say it's a few more magnitudes to that, aye?

I'd appreciate it if you actually read what I said instead of strawmanning.
They're dozens to hundreds of meters large, by simply angsizing and comparing them to the trees. That's how big they are when actively being disingenuous as ****, because they aren't as far back as the trees, they're incomparably further. Meaning, in reality, they're not just dozens to hundreds of meters large, they're incomparably larger. You understand what that means right? It means your point about the skybox stars being the same or arbitrarily small because the stars in some attack animations small, doesn't coincide. This isn't hard to understand Bambu.

Point is, some celestial object lookalikes are provably smaller. We can extrapolate from that that the verse doesn't always handle these things as being properly sized, least of all in this instance.

No offense, but your point is kinda bad and just "they're small because I say so". Yeah, some objects are indeed provably smaller, these ones aren't provably smaller but rather provably not the same or even remotely as small as the other stars which are indeed small. They don't fit into the framework where this line of reasoning works, in fact, it contradicts it.
You say the stars in the skybox MUST be small because these other stars are tiny, but when you actually compare them, they aren't the same thing at all.
You can't use a quarter meter star in a fancy attack to discredit stars magnitudes larger by simply glancing at them without even taking into account the true distance. It's laughable if you think that's the case, that's not only being disinengious, but straight up ignoring all visual evidence given to you.

I don't really know or care why you think they need to be the exact same size to make this point valid. We just need to establish a trend. We did that.

Oh, a trend? There's actual real stars in Elden Ring as well which look similar to the skybox in the Elden Beast arena, there, new trend established, point countered.
But no, you can't use something objectively not the same to discredit something completely different that is factually not even remotely close to being the same. It's like saying because a cup of water looks like the ocean the ocean must be small too even though it's demonstrably not the same size.

Give us an actual size for the stars in the elden arena instead of making false comparisons between things objectively not the same and head cannoning that they must be small as well but only arbitrarily because you have no idea how small and just that they must be. This isn't how it works in any verse lad, you should know as much.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Yeah, the Stars literally appear behind the ******* Erdtrees like you would expect stars in space to do from Ground Level.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You have now hammered in the same point that still doesn't really matter by repeating that "this isn't how this works". You don't have anything to prove they are stars or star-sized. Granted, I lack anything to prove they are insignificantly small, but I am working off of implications that the game gives. In the void of other such evidence, this is basically all we can work with.

Your point is "this isn't how this works because I say so". My point isn't "because I say so", my point is "because we see similar things that are smaller". You either don't understand that or don't care. Miss me with the "disingenuous as ****" bullshit if you're going to misrepresent me so harshly and then quote the shit you just ignored.

Let me spell it out for you. I believe the stars are smaller than their traditional counterpart. I believe this because the game has a tendency to display these things as smaller, particularly in relation to the Elden Beast's creations. I cannot prove this as concrete but I can provide it as a sort of null hypothesis, one that cannot be legitimately disproven. Note that my hypothesis does not say, for example, "the stars up in the sky are the same size as the ones used by the Elden Beast to attack". Just that they could be substantially smaller than Sol.

Nothing you have said, like it or not, disproves any of this, man, because we're dealing with vague shit. The fact is it comes down to whether or not you really want them to be star-sized or not. My point is one mitigating factor that, in my opinion, is more than enough. But frankly, yeah, you could just say "uh I think they're star sized" and I cannot objectively prove you wrong. That was never the point. The point is pointing out that this is unlikely.

The actual stars in Elden Ring are irrelevant. We're not in the open world, Chariot. The stuff in the Elden Beast arena is made to look similar. The nebulae attack looks similar to the nebulae visible from outside, too. is your next point to compare those? It'd really damage your point if it was. Please stop thrashing like this, eh? Calm down.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The stellar object look-alikes that the player stands next to.

For an attack move that has nothing to do with the background of the dimension.

You assume the sub-dimension is created in that instant, as opposed to traveling there, to an existent space

I have a very simple question for you Bambu: Provide any evidence for your hypothesis.

If you can prove it's an existing subspace then you would be correct that the Elden Beast would not scale to it. So please, give a piece of in-game evidence to support that.

But to respond to your response, we all know you can't because there's nothing. We see the Beast yell, the dimension is formed around it and when it dies the dimension vanishes. There's nothing else about this space lore wise that would contradict it, nothing that implies the stars are like the falling meteors, nothing that implies it isn't real like with Rennala and we know through multiple lore items that Outer God's can summon avatars to the Earth. The Elden Beast has enough for a "Possibly 4-A rating" for the same reason why Radahn had enough evidence for a "possibly High 4-C" rating. It's a creation feat that meets all of our criteria for AP scaling.

The proposal for reference is to be like Radahn's rating: At least 7-A, possibly 4-A.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I have a very simple question for you Bambu: Provide any evidence for your hypothesis.

Are you familiar with the concept of an alternative hypothesis, Qawsedf? My point is less that I know for certain what is happening, rather that you cannot prove the opposite. In a situation like this, that's significant. So I have a simple request for you: prove your hypothesis. Otherwise, your challenge is pointless.

You assume it is a creation feat, yes, we've gone in this circle before. As I said to Chariot, it genuinely does come down to whether you want to see it that way. If you can squint hard enough at the evidence to justify 4-A. Clearly I cannot, clearly you can.

Regardless, since it seems to be coming down to brass tacks, let's tally, I suppose.

"At least 7-A, possibly/likely/what have you High 4-C": 3 (Myself, Emirp, Zarat)

"At least 7-A, possibly/likely 4-A": 2 (Qaw, Grath)

Alt Ideas:

- Grath wants "At least 7-A, likely High 4-C, possibly 4-A" as an ideal state

- I obviously would prefer just "High 4-C" or "At least High 4-C"

- Emirp has said that he'd prefer "At least 7-A, possibly High 4-C to 4-A" under the specific circumstances that we go with Grath's idea

Depending on the consensus we could wrap this up with one more proper staff vote, I think, or we reach an inconclusive. Either way, we do need minimum one more.

 

[Chariot190]

As I said to Chariot, it genuinely does come down to whether you want to see it that way

Not really, you're kinda just ignoring everything that contradicts or casts doubt onto your claims and just running with it. Honestly, it's less if they're actual stars and more if the Elden Beast even created that place to begin with, that I can get being suspicious on at the very least, which is why I'm more leaning toward High 4-C personally but eh.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Not really, you're kinda just ignoring everything that contradicts or casts doubt onto your claims and just running with it. Honestly, it's less if they're actual stars and more if the Elden Beast even created that place to begin with, that I can get being suspicious on at the very least, which is why I'm more leaning toward High 4-C personally but eh.

You have repeatedly said you believe my point is "because I say so". I don't know how much more hypocritical you can get. I haven't ignored shit. I've responded to your criticisms. After which you're now just trying to invalidate me regardless. I'm exhausted and this damnable thread is the cause.

 

[Chariot190]

You have repeatedly said you believe my point is "because I say so". I don't know how much more hypocritical you can get. I haven't ignored shit. I've responded to your criticisms. After which you're now just trying to invalidate me regardless. I'm exhausted and this damnable thread is the cause.

I mean, I can elaborate even further if you want? I wrote out a pretty long response but decided you're probably set in your ways so other lads should just decide on their own based on what was already said, I can post said reply if you have issues with my previous responses?
And I'm not invalidating you, not you in particular anyway, more so your whole star thingy, no offense, but it really doesn't add up when you actually go point by point as to what it checks off.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You've repeatedly stated that I will ignore everything said for no apparent reason other than stubbornness. I don't know what you thought you were trying to do there, if not specifically offend me, lad.

 

[Chariot190]

You've repeatedly stated that I will ignore everything said for no apparent reason other than stubbornness. I don't know what you thought you were trying to do there, if not specifically offend me, lad.

I mean, I call it as I see it, if you're gonna ignore or just handwave stuff to make your claims, well, sorry I guess? And offend you? Not really if you take offense sorry I suppose but online, it's really not worth getting caught up in things like that, some people get offended at everything, some not at all, may as well just say what ya gotta say and be done with it, i don't think anything I said was even bad tbh, pretty standard.
But anyway yeah, if ya just ignore everything, I'm going to say as much, I can outline every single point I think you're ignoring or just not taking into account but I'm pretty sure everyone already knows as much.
But at this point we're derailing, if you want to continue the actual argument, we can do so, but this here? Doesn't really help us decide what we should rate the lads as.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So I have a simple request for you: prove your hypothesis.

My statement is that there's enough evidence for a 4-A rating since

• The Elden Beast roars and the area is warped to a new realm (Fast + The character created it)
• Magic in Elden Ring can be used as physical enhancements (Common Power Source)
• When the Elden Beast dies the realm vanishes (Tied to the creators death)

All of that meets enough of the requirements for creation feats to be considered a valid end for a 4-A rating. Plus as I mentioned the Elden Beast lacks a vast array of issues everyone else has regarding any cosmic level showings.

- Grath wants "At least 7-A, likely High 4-C, possibly 4-A" as an ideal state

I guess that's fine. I think the justifications should be

At least 7-A (Notably superior to Radahn), likely High 4-C (Elden Ring controlling stars), possibly 4-A (Created dimension with starry sky)

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Eh, the controlling the stars still seems kinda wack.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Eh, the controlling the stars still seems kinda wack.

If that's the case then just

At least 7-A (Notably superior to Radahn),, possibly 4-A (Created dimension with starry sky. Embodies the Elden Ring which was mentioned as controlling stars)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I find just upscaling from Radahn infinitely more agreeable, for the record.