Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 406 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.
This analysis describes version 2.0.132 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.132, updated 2026-08-31.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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
very pricey. build times start to go way up for the stronghold by lvl 8. potential f2p friendly but very heavy p2w benefits. packages are just 99 bucks a pop
This game is very fun and also very expensive it definitely is a pay to win game but there are a lot of very good balances as well. I'm very impressed about how the devs have come up with ways to keeping events up and special events…
Pay-to-win game in a nutshell, absolutely not recommended. You need to pay more than 100 bucks to be able to compete with mid-tier players like free-to-play veterans or significant spenders, most of them quit playing anyway. Forget about…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Don't bother to play this game. they bring out updates that devalue your hardwork and whatever gear you have . it is advertised as free to play but it is not and after the last update it is not a game for middle spenders either. it is a…
Another game that sucks you in with fake ads that have nothing to do with this game. Thanks for nothing. and now they are tricking people with fake bonuses. don't tell me you didn't know. it's a trick you use to get players and you know…
False advertisement, the ad said "no pay to win" but it couldn't be further from the truth
What this app sells
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.