Of all the projects I have been working on, this project has probably consumed the most time. This project is essentially a digital collectible card game, but it lacks something that most would consider a core mechanic: luck. 

I’ve discussed luck on my site before. What it is and what it does. 
It is clear that I am an advocate for games with little to no luck elements. First, I will address why, according to "everyone," it is a must to have a luck element in collectible card games. 

Variety: Without luck, every game is the same. Players do what works, so they play card A, then B, then C, then D. When luck is involved, players have to adapt to the cards they draw. 
Balancing: Strong cards can be (significantly) weakened by adding an element of luck. A strong effect with a coin flip (50% chance it works and 50% it doesn't) halves its power. 
Accessibility: A luck element makes the game more appealing to less experienced players. Players who constantly lose because they don't fully understand what they are doing will quickly stop playing. 
Dramatic Moments: Luck can lead to special situations that create hilarious or epic moments. 

These are good arguments, but not strong enough to justify relying 100% on luck. In fact, after reading such arguments, I feel an even stronger urge to prove that it is not necessary. For this reason, I have devised counterarguments for each point. 

Variety: The problem of lack of variety without luck has only one reason: cards do only one thing. That's why cards must be drawn in a random order; players need to think about what to do with the cards they have in hand. 

My solution is simple. Instead of cards having only one function, they can have multiple functions. Most cards in my game can do not one or two things but four or five. Due to the various options, they can be played differently depending on the situation. This ensures that players not only execute their strategy but also respond to the opponent's strategy. The deck (a chosen set of cards) is different for each player. Therefore, you do not know what the player has in their deck or hand. 

The goal is that whatever cards you have in hand, you can respond to the opponent's play to some extent. By doing so, the opponent will also respond, forcing you to do the same. After a few turns, you are playing a fundamentally different game than the previous one, even if you play with the exact same cards. 
Balancing: The reason for adding luck is almost as strong as the reason not to. Balancing can be done just as easily without luck. For example, a coin flip adds only an extra game mechanic. It is not necessary. In my game, luck is present as a mechanic, but its impact is minimal. 
Accessibility: In my opinion, this is the best argument for luck. I haven't been able to come up with a way to completely solve this. There are some partial solutions, such as a good matching system (no matching against much better players) and battles against the computer, but it remains that a bad player will never win against a better player. My idea is that, since there are hundreds, if not thousands, of collectible card games that have luck to make them accessible, it might work better to do something different from all those other games. 
Dramatic Moments: While luck can create spectacular moments, this can also happen through clever actions. Isn't it much more satisfying to have an epic situation due to your smart moves rather than by chance? 

With all these counterarguments, I have designed a game that addresses these points. The playing field consists of four elements: Earth, Fire, Water, and Air. Cards have different effects depending on the position where they are played. Additionally, most cards can also be evolved, offering an extra option. 

This means that a game will play out differently no matter which cards you play, eliminating the need for random card draws. Cards can be chosen at the end of a turn in preparation for the next turn. 

In this game, many elements are borrowed from other games, as is standard in collectible card games. Therefore, I will not elaborate on these similarities but will discuss the differences. 

In addition to the chosen cards and effects with minimal luck involvement, mana (comparable to Hearthstone as a resource to play cards) is carried over between turns. Instead of a 3-mana card being playable only in turn three, it can already be played in turn two by saving the mana from the first turn. This allows mana to accumulate significantly. This mana can be used not only to play cards in the player's turn but also for so-called 'sudden magic' cards. These cards are played during the opponent's turn, but this also costs mana. Efficient mana management is a crucial aspect of the game. 

In contrast to the rapidly changing mana levels (where very strong cards can be played early), the number of cards is a bigger issue. Players receive one card per turn, with almost no ways to gain extra cards. Therefore, players need to carefully consider playing multiple cards per turn. 

Another notable difference is the element of traps. Traps themselves are not unusual in collectible card games, but in 'Cracked Nexus,' they have an extra function. When placing a trap, a player's mana becomes invisible. The reason for this is that experienced players can deduce which trap a player has played by looking at the mana cost of the trap. By making this invisible, players do not know what it is. Additionally, a trap can be used to make the total mana invisible, and only when traps activate does the mana become visible again. 

A final notable change is that all matches are played as a best of three, with a side deck. Players can swap some cards between matches to better prepare for the opponent. 

There are plans to add multiple game modes, including a single-player mode, to keep the game interesting, but this depends on how well it performs.