again... I'm not one of the people who attacks the turrets. I literally have done nothing but advocate for creative problem solving that DOESNT result in just destroying things.
But I didn't ask what you did or advocated for. I pointed how that type of exploit IS a viable solution right now and it probably shouldn't be.
but if you're playing a character who *would* just destroy things why should you not have that option as a player?
Because "What character I wanted to be" and "What needs to be done" are NOT things that I should be entitled to see overlap, for once.
IF a combat option has to be contemplated among the possible solutions, it should probably be one that can't leverage metagame tricks.
it's not a competitive game, it's NOT an e-sport.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
if you find breaking items in the environment not fun then simply don't do it....
IF literally any puzzle can be circumvented by "I'll just click on the barrier that separates me from the reward until it goes down" then you have a potential design issue to solve.
And to be clear, I think it's perfectly legitimate for the player to do it if it works (even if I wouldn't), which is PRECISELY why it's a designer's job to attempt to prevent, defuse or discourage approaches that trivialize a scenario.
do you want a scooby snack?
Do you want to hear a very loud burp?