Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 404 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 7.801 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.801, updated 2026-09-16.
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This isn't like the ad AT ALL. Immediate uninstall for that blatant lie of false advertisement.
I wish I could give this negative stars, this is not what is advertised, not even close, this game is beyond what i would refer to as, stupid.
nothing like the advertisements I joined, thinking I was going to have to rise the ranks of society and not rebuild a kingdom. only gets 2 stars for having nice designs for characters. I wish there were more diverse characters I could…
Pay to progress
The developers of this game showed exactly how to take the perfect game and run it into the ground quicker than it began. Too many servers are being made, too many mediocre pay to win events and so many features being added that have…
I'm gonna update my review after 4+years playing this game. So, this is a pay to win game since idk 1 or 2 years ago. Everything's just fine with competitive players but now lot of new features almost every months, new updates, kinda hard…
It's been 2 years since my first review. So much has changed, and to see how this game has grown shows how involved the team is. It is very much a pay to win but if you're not influenced easily you'll be fine. From wonderful art to…
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.