Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,011 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 1.7.4.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.7.4.1, updated 2026-09-14.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.7.41 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.7.41, updated 2026-09-03.
What the analysis found
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Devs pulled an amazing bait and switch. Generous rewards, f2p friendly, then a new season launched. Cut rewards by more than half, nerfed f2p friendly characters that allowed non-spenders to compete, and otherwise reversed every positive…
The adds bro this game is nothing like the adds
False Advertisement — There’s no digimon in this game??
Pay to progress
Patch 1.7.2 is completely empty. There is zero meaningful content added outside of a generic new PvP mode. To make matters worse, locking Faramor's skin behind a paywall while giving players nothing else to do cut out lots of f2p content…
whats the use of guild merge if most of the events are P2W? even battle drills become optional when rankings are abolished. a light spender like me can't keep up and was alienated by the game because i am not p2w enough to compete…
Heavily P2W, underdelivering contents with less rewards than promised, shoves formation they labeled as "proven" and STILL CAN'T CLEAR even when attempted with higher character promotions and power levels
Paywall blocks the basics
Unfortunately, I'm changing my review of the game after playing it for over 2 years. It used to be fully deserved 5 stars, but these days the game turned into a kraken-milking enterprise. Some well-liked game modes are getting deleted…
Patch 1.7.2 is completely empty. There is zero meaningful content added outside of a generic new PvP mode. To make matters worse, locking Faramor's skin behind a paywall while giving players nothing else to do cut out lots of f2p content…
bro be so fr. I am a VIP 12 who has been with this game for awhile now, loved supporting it and played a game that was balanced both PvE and PvP. but now with reputation quests and VoW being stripped away, theres no reason for me to keep…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 10 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.