Is there a better point system than the official one?

So, I know that the point system was made by really great players and all... But I don't know if I like it, even accepting that it's just a guideline, not a 100% rule. Keep in mind this is all just for fun, and I'm in no way saying that I actually no better than masters blah blah blah.

1st of all 3 pawns should be better than a minor piece. The main advantage of a minor piece is that it picks off pawns, so while in the opening a minor piece might be slightly better since there's plenty of time to pick off pawns, I think the 3 pawns are generally better.

And a rook being equal to 5 pawns?! No way. Rooks are mainly good in the endgame, around the time promotions become a big threat. Before than they don't come nearly as useful in picking off those pawns.

Apparently starting without all 8 pawns is actually winning against starting without your queen, but that's because of the really huge lead in development no pawns give, and even that is all with complicated engine techniques. In human chess I'm quite sure I'd do way better without the queen than without all 8 pawns. Once the pieces are already developed, I also think no queen is better, because the king is better defended, and the side up the queen will likely have to give up pieces to stop promotions.

So wouldn't the following point system seem more accurate if we're not factoring in who knows more, and just looking at straight logic?

Pawns= 1 point

Bishop= Knight=2.5 points

Rook=4 Points

Queen=7.5 Points