In some respects there is no merit in engineering this out, as this leads to mechanical overcomplication of what is an already complicated device. And of course added cost.
As stated, aside from the aerodynamic interactions of the tail rotor and main rotor(s) the BMI and indeed distribution of your punters/ stores/ arrays and indeed ordinance can affect all this. The Gazelle could on occasion hover one skid low but also with an aft inclination of the skid. Which required a gentle touch; in fact the thing is still technically in the hover until she’s finally on the deck, which can be witnessed on occasion by ab initiates (and it has to be said even experienced old f@rts) ‘cyclic hopping’ around the tarmac. Aircraft that were designed to deck land on small ships for example tend to have highly absorbent gear to cater for the fact that you couldn’t really demonstrate too much finesse in the final foot or so of landing due to deck pitch and roll, and just had to put it down, irrespective of whether you had one skid or wheel lower than the other.
Once you’ve mastered hovering it becomes second nature, which as another poster has alluded to doesn’t involve too much in the way of grey matter, and which is why in a subjective way is very hard to explain. You just have to observe it and get on with it. All great fun, as is downwind work and transitions, and I for one still miss it.