Level scaling does not mean all opponents are the same level of power. Creating encounters that are level scaled to the player but offer a differing ranges of difficulty are completely doable. You can have minions, elites, champions, bosses, etc who all share the same "level" but offer huge differences in difficulty.
Yes, but they are just harder/easier enemies. Your experience and power still won't matter. Archlich example: very hard at lvl
1, very hard at lvl 30.
I find nothing fun about wandering into an encounter that is so far above my level that I have no chance of beating it. The only thought running through my head at that moment is "I'm obviously not supposed to be here yet.". It's not a sense of danger, it's a sense of mistakenly turning left when the game obviously expected me to turn right.
Well, this is a matter of preference obviously, so i cannot say you are wrong. However, i'll try to explain why i feel differently: For me, part of the appeal of a gameworld, especially in P&P/cRPG games, is its level of "fantastic realism". For example, events progress, so if the Vault Dweller thinks he can solve the "lovesick guy will blow up the power station"-situation in three days, he will be too late. If Frodo simply ventures into a dragon lair, despite all the warnings, and tries to attack Smaug with his little blade, he won't fight an "elite", he will just burn. The expectation that any challange can be solved in any way at any time by everyone simply destroys immersion for me.
And revisiting the area later at the appropriate level is not satisfying.. it's just what's obviously required and expected. I don't sit there saying "Oh, I'm finally getting my revenge on that no-longer-scary monster who beat me easily when I was 15 levels lower than it.. the way it was clearly supposed to if stats and this game are working properly at all.. ".
Actually, i do find this very satisfying, both in real life and in games. To be able to grow and learn to master a previously unbeatable challange is one of the most satisfying things to me.
Both running a marathon and speaking a new language isn't a matter of trying very hard (elite challenge), you really have to train and get better and better until you can finally do it - then train more to do it well. If you just started martial arts, you can defeat almost nobody - and it is very satisfying to experience the gradual change towards mastery.
Nor do I find it fun to come across a new area that's supposed to be exciting but is filled with monsters who are so far below my level that killing them seems like a boring chore of going through the motions. Where no tactical thought is necessary because it's practically impossible to lose a fight where my opponents are (in comparison to my party) so weak they can barely scratch me.
Well, i do find it satisfying if bandits and low level enemies don't dare to attack anymore, surrender or die fast. The Dragonslayer and his companions really shouldn't be bothered or challenged by the "rat invasion" in the tavern cellar anymore.
But i also agree, "leftover" dungeons can indeed be solved by level scaling.
But, I guess we'd all rather keep reading conflicting complaints about how Divinity is too easy/hard rather than trying to get it as close as possible to "just right" for everyone. Even the difficulty level settings don't seem to be solving the problem.
Difficulty doesn't depend on level scaling or no level scaling. Both systems can be well balanced, as seen in other games. And "just right" challenges are probably a good thing for the frustration-intolerant mass market. But i do prefer the "old school" approach, and the success of Dark Souls shows that there is a definite market for this. So, i'm happy D:OS didn't choose the "just right" path.
But i can understand your position and i don't think you are wrong, i just have different priorities and thus different preferences.
