I only agree with the range and cost increase , but the damage increase doesn't feel justified.
T3 AA sams are already dirt-cheap for the amount of DPS they provide , along with their tanky health.
A range and cost increase will serve greatly to make them less DPS effective early T3 stage against T3 gunships (which i believe they shouldn't be effective against at all, just like how T3 Land defense isn't as effective against T3 heavy units , unlike how T2 defs compare to T2 units)

For the argument to hold , compare the percy (7200 HP , 1280 mass cost, 337 dps, 34 range) against T3 uef defense (6500 HP , 2000 mass , 272 dps, 70 range) and the SAM(7000 HP , 800 mass , 342 DPS, 60 range) against T3 Uef gunships (6000 health , 1500 mass, 250 dps , 44 range)
Land gameplay is highly dependant on range since land units are far more slower paced , thus the turrets doubled range is justified, along with its mass cost.
For air however .. the units are far more mobile , the range difference between SAMS and T3 gunships is 16 , which is fast to close by air units . The main point of T3 sams should be to provide a stationary defense for a large area against weak/harrasing forces , not to completly block tactical avenues for the enemy once they are spammed enough(which is very convenient to do because of how cheap they are for their utility)

@snoog Then explain why players like telemazers and a few others are constantly kicked out of them ? they dont troll their team and use valid strategies.

@waffelznoob For the first point , balance is ever-evolving . Rating is not a constant that is relevant here at all, especially considering that i couldve been obtained whilst some things were unbalanced and kept up by just not playing.
Another reason it doesnt matter you're the 0.01% is that most of the 1600+ lobbies enact "bans" against "unbalanced" strategies like tele-mazer and kick people known to do them, leaving them "comfortable"

As for the second point , all land unit DPS is fully enacted upon a unit while its within its weapon range , whilst for interceptors , they have to spend 3-4 seconds to enact 2-3 seconds of their DPS, ASF's face the same issue ,however it is not as bad since they got the highest DPS to TOP any gunship , unlike T1 inties which got low DPS and low health combined with low speed and high turn rate(and are expected to be able to deal with T2 gunships)

@waffelznoob How is being in the top 0.01% relevant to the argument at hand?
Also yes 12 interceptors wont od well against 12 gunships, but their expected efficiency is otherwise reduced by a lot if not ordered to hover.

@sylph_ A fair point , however this disparity shouldnt be as big as it is with air right now in DPS , i understand losing land if you dont micro for a while against T1 arty , but the lost is not extreme and fast , and the units move slowly . With AIR the playstyle is more fast-paced and a lot of damage can be done in a short amount if units get past.

@waffelznoob having to micro air at such a level goes against the very notions of FA, that is macro is more important than micro.
If we compare DPS even 12 inties should be able to do a big amount of damage ,but unless you hover them , they will barely enact any DPS . This is why T2 GS snipes are so prevalent , because you either need a obscene amount of T1 asfs or to micro-manage them.

Just as the title says ,all T1 interceptors should have their turn rate buffed by a significant amount , this is because of how tanky T2 gunships become due to the immense turn that T1 interceptors have to do for another shooting run on targets that tend to be stationary.
This would also stop the issue of transport micro where they wait for the plane to pass by and then move it , instead of moving it constantly which would let the intie get behind and constantly shoot.
Alternatively , they could be made to fire higher damage shots with reduced firerate.

Really liking the changes so far , however i do not see the reasoning for increasing ASF dps as justified. They are still too spammable in general (with 30-50 of them making VERY fast work of most if not all air experimentals)

@ftxcommando Jamming on navy is made useless once a scout plane goes over tho , since marked units will be prio-targeted. It is however way more effective due to how navy ranges dont usually match the vision radius.
If land needs jamming , i think it'd be interesting if all stationary T3 mobile arties received it as a way to compensate for their lack of mobility against T2 stationary arty.
Could also be applied to heavy T3 land (Percies and Bricks) as a way to make Sniper-bots less of a hard counter.

@sladow-noob Personally , these changes wont put stealth and jamming on the same place , since stealth is still considerably better (dont even have a idea the unit is there). These changes are more so jamming is more relevant to the game and not a useless feature some units have.