I don't think anyone is saying that "anything is broken".
Historically, platform/rig designers tended to site helidecks on the structure as an after thought, and were more concerned with the functionality of the 'rig' for its purpose than how the helideck location would be affected by its environment. So, traditionally, the hapless helicopter pilot turned up and dealt with the conditions as best he could. Sometimes they will be benign and landing is a simple task to accomplish, other times it will be downright frightening, and quite likely dangerous leaving the crew sighing a breath of relief when on the deck or possibly having to go around.
So to recognise this fact of life, the operators created restrictions, based on wind sector and strength, for those rigs with known problems (doesn't take too many approaches to the Brae with a 50 kt wind from the NW to realise that it's not big and it's not clever to keep doing it!)
Those limits were based on what 'felt right' for a particular type based on qualatative assessment by experienced pilots, such as the company test pilots, and would take the form of weight penalties that became progressively harsher as wind strength increased and normally reaching a limiting wind speed when ops would be banned.
Do these limits work? Well, up to a point they must do. Are the crew being put under an excessive workload such that they will lack spare capacity to deal with subsequent problems? Who knows; no-one calculated it, but probably in some cases. Are the passengers being exposed to a risk they should not be? Ditto.
With modern computing capabilities and simulation techniques, it would seem entirely sensible to look at this problem more carefully, surely? For any given platform design, a set of restricted crieria could be drawn up which would vary from type to type, based on their individual control and performance characteristics.
In what way can this be construed as a bad thing?
Do we really advocate the phillosophy of "off you go Bloggs to the XYZ rig which has a 60 kt wind, clad derricks and turbine exhaust plumes, and have a go, see how it feels and if you don't like it come back"?
Do we expect our B777 pilot taking us on holiday to 'shoot an approach' in a gusting 40 kt crosswind to see if "he can manage it"? I hope not; we expect him to say "no that's out of limits.
Where's the difference?
As I say, exactly the same principle applies to Pitch, Roll and Heave limits; some sort of limits had to be set originally, but with time it is obvious they are deficient in their logic. 3 degrees of roll for a deck 30 ft ASL is going to generate totally different accelerations and lateral displacements than one that is 130 ft ASL. Therefore an alternative is being sought.
I don't think the terms "zest", "cooked up" or "lowest common denominator" really apply in this context.