Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,180 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 0.1.68 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 0.1.68, updated 2026-09-29.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 0.1.68 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 0.1.68, updated 2026-09-24.
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 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
Another stupid PvP game that you spend money on to really progress and be able to compete. We need to go back to calling the current ads False Advertisement and shut them down for it. Show the actual "in-game design" that you will mostly…
game isn't as advertised, it's another generic basic concept, filled with forced missions and a totally different gameplay as advertised. furthermore it's the same as all the others: forced tutorial with barely any info. afterwards your…
not single player. pay to win alliance based game. misleading ad. waste of time.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Another stupid PvP game that you spend money on to really progress and be able to compete. We need to go back to calling the current ads False Advertisement and shut them down for it. Show the actual "in-game design" that you will mostly…
yet another build your base so once your shield expires others can attack you game. nothing like the ads at all
False Advertising At Its Finest. What can I say besides it's just a police reskin of Kingshot. Lures you in under the premise of one thing. What you actually get is something totally different. Just glad I didn't sink loads of time into…
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.