The root of this "problem" is that there is an intrinsic mathematical advantage to this strategy. One has a roughly 20% advantage on each shot compared to a midrange shot. For example consider rough numbers to illustrate the point: 40% x3 (three point shot from a good shooter), or 60% x2 (layup) or 75%x1x2 (FTs for fould on missed layup) meaning somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 pts expected on a possession. This is contrast to roughly 1 point expected on a possesion for a midrange shot (50% x 2). In addition, this approach further favors teams that take more shots over the course of the game (both from a statistical sense, and from strategy if you believe racing up the court makes it tougher for the defense to align properly). So any rationale actor would continue to have his team race up the court and launch 3 pointer or drive for layups all game long
If you like that style of play then there's no need to change anything.

However, if you prefer older style of play consider the following. Imagine if the 3 point line was more of a gamble rather than an intrinsic advantage. To do this, all that's needed it to alter scoring

A three point shot becomes worth 5 points, and a typical bucket is worth 4 points. In this situation the expected points per possession are roughly equal (2 points per possession) In this case there is no intrinsic advantage. it becomes more of a gamble for example if you need to catch up, or perhaps to try and pull away.

Alternatively, you could turn on the 3 point shot only later in the shot clock, e.g., last 5 or 6 seconds. This would reduce the number of possessions in the game mitigating the scoring advantage some from a statistical sense, plus make the defensive strategy more interesting.

IMO we need to do something

I think it’s a matter of players simply not practicing the mid range game enough. Mid range shots should be very efficient.

That basically went poof the day Kobe retired.

And then look to add perhaps a 4pt line, and then maybe make everything outside the box worth 3pts?

I don't know that the game is broken.

also fouls behind the three point line should only be one free throw if they miss. play would be a lot more physical.

In poker if you count cards you have a mathematical edge. It doesn't mean you will win every hand, or any given hand. Instead it means that mathematically speaking if you have a large enough pot (which one can calculate) and you play enough hands eventually you can grind it out and expect to make money with a high degree of certainty

That's what current teams are doing when (like the Nets) they race up the court and take the first decent 3 they can. If they do that enough, they're playing the odds; there's a mathematical edge to that style. And of course players will adapt their skills accordingly to leverage that edge as much as they can, and teams will design their plays to likewise leverage that advantage

If we don't change we'll see more and more mimicry of the nets, bucks, rockets etc.

If one likes that style great, but if you don't it won't change unless somehow the rules do. Every sport changes rules for a variety of reasons including to accommodate fan preferences (e.g., proposed pitch clock in baseball; change to rally scoring in volleyball (for those who follow that great sport)