Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 527 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 4.8.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.8.0, updated 2026-09-24.
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
Been playing for months, got to level 24. All I can say is this game is very pay to win. Another thing is that to survive, you are force into a clan. if you have money to waste then you pretty much become a god in this game. Also thing…
Just got banned from the game for some reason with no explanation. Just because I was able to use the game efficiently to start and had a lv 10 base within a day? The London boss was glitched anyway and I can tell this will be heavy P2w…
improve the game. you want to much money for the scraps you offer. this week 29 players have quit the game. I know of most of my clan which is 100 strong want to quit the game. something to think about. if you have endless time. level 25…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
kind of fun, but NOTHING like the ad, so I'm deleting.
NOTHING like the ads. its a shooter with naked busty women
absolutely nothing like the ads which is standard. game is super boring
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.