Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 511 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 1.4.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.4.3, updated 2026-08-08.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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.
Pay to progress
Great potential ruined by aggressive monetization. The game is just pay-to-win, no skills required, and the fun core gameplay is constantly interrupted by pop-up ads and pushy notifications. Progress hits a massive paywall, forcing you to…
Pay to win game, you can not get anything unless you pay a lot of money. It is fine to have top up options to boost character, but asking for over 500$ to get Mythic items with every event its too much. Plus you can not get this items…
The game could be good, but it is EXTREMELY PAY TO WIN. Not the usual mobile-game P2W: here, whoever spends the most basically wins. Even worse, during events you can spend real money on resources and, because of bugs, they may not be…
Aggressive ad load
Great potential ruined by aggressive monetization. The game is just pay-to-win, no skills required, and the fun core gameplay is constantly interrupted by pop-up ads and pushy notifications. Progress hits a massive paywall, forcing you to…
Ad heavy. Constant crashes and bugs. The company screws over long time players by cutting rewards and giving you less and less over time. The devs designed it so you dont get the skill option for what you built for.. so you constantly…
Actually pretty fun... was inundated with fb ads and never tried the game till it came up on playwell. I rotate through a few apps that pay out for gameplay and always love when something that's actually fun comes up rather than the…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.