What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 12.4.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.4.1, updated 2026-10-06.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 12.4.0, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 12.4.1 · 2026-10-06
SIMULATION ERRORS: Fight your way to victory through simulation glitches! DEDOPALI: Let the turrets do the job! ULTIMATE SHELL: Extra shields in 3-2-1 ! FIXES: Patched bugs and improved optimization. FIXES: Patched bugs and improved optimization.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 12.4.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.4.0, updated 2026-09-15.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
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
this game become so much p2w only player who spend money is the Real pro players. when the game had F2W and 1/4 is P2W. now Everything has changed and no responsibility from game none is changing anything the players requested even i am…
No word to describe how broken it's. Greedy ruined the game.Ultimate p2w but don't waste your money like I did. Whatever you buy gonna be useless in a short time. Matchmaking sucks. Not even mention it's full of cheaters. "automatic…
this game sucks so bad theirs more videos of pay to win tha. their are videos of actual game play
Aggressive ad load
too many ads . also forcefully watch ads.
the aiming sucks and it majes yoy watch way too many adds
Too pay-to-win — I love this game. Like, it’s probably my favorite game gameplay wise. Unfortunately, it’s unplayable if you aren’t paying in the upper leagues. I once counted 26 pop up ads before opening the game. Also, you have to pay…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
False ads for game — The ads played across social media do not match the game at all. Game is far more boring and restrictive than the ads make it appear.
Deceptive Advertising — The advertisement gameplay does not match the actual game.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.