VCT 2025 PCF «STAGE 2»: PRX

ANALYTICS

VCT 2025 PCF «STAGE 2»: PRX ANALYTICS

OVERVIEW

VALORANT Champions Tour (VCT) 2025 is the fifth annual competitive tournament circuit organized by Riot Games. It consists of three seasons — «Kickoff», «Stage 1», and «Stage 2» — each divided into four sub-regions: Americas (AMER), China (CN), EMEA, and Pacific (PCF).

While «Kickoff» served as a testing ground where teams experimented with compositions, strategies, and ideas that could shape the season’s meta, and «Stage 1» was the first season with a well-established meta that required teams to adapt and refine their tactics, «Stage 2» became the moment of truth, where teams had to unleash their full potential and prove their worth. During this tournament, the best teams earned regional titles and qualified for VCT Champions 2025.

Patch 11.00

VLR

Liquipedia

In the PCF region, Paper Rex (PRX) delivered a near-flawless run, dropping only 3 maps throughout the tournament. The team has been steadily building momentum, making their regional victory just a matter of time. With this win, the team secured a direct qualification to the year’s biggest event, VCT Champions 2025.

This paper provides an overview of the PRX team’s performance at the tournament, followed by some conclusions, and compares their performace to «Stage 1».

Other VCT 2025 «Stage 2» papers are available via the links below:

Agent Analytics — link

AMER: G2 Analytics — link

CN: BLG Analytics — link

EMEA: TL Analytics — link

MAP ANALYSIS

This section analyzes the team’s performance across various aspects to determine their map prioritization. It also compares key metrics with their «Stage 1» results, enabling an assessment of the team’s progress and development.

ROSTER / COMPOSITION

Figure 1. Roster and Composition

As illustrated in Figure 1, the team loves to experiment by tossing in something unexpected to their default lineup — like Sage, a pick that’s a real rarity these days. This flexibility comes from a roster where nearly every player can handle any role or agent. Still, there’s a clear lean toward Vyse over other sentinels (with Viper stepping in where Vyse isn’t an option), plus frequent plays with Raze and Yoru, and the steady presence of Omen.

Last season, the team switched up their compositions almost every game, keeping opponents guessing and adding that edge of unpredictability. This season, they’ve taken a more conservative approach, but as can be seen, it’s paid off handsomely.

MAP STATS

Figure 2. Map Performance: Map Playrate and Winrate

Figure 3. Round Performance: Round and Pistol Round Winrates

Based on the visual data presented in Figures 3 and 4, the team boasts impressive stats across key metrics, but their low pistol round winrate on the attacking side deserves some attention.

Compared to «Stage 1», the team’s map winrate soared by an impressive 25%, while their round winrate rose by 2%. However, their pistol round winrate dipped, largely due to weaker performance on the attacking side.

WIN CONDITIONS

Figure 4. Post-Plant Performance: Post-Plant Winrate and Its Change Compared to the «Stage 2» Teams Average

Figure 5. Retake Performance: Retake Winrate and Its Change Compared to the «Stage 2» Teams Average

According to the data in Figures 5 and 6, the team shows mixed performance. They excel in retake scenarios on Haven and Ascent, but need work on post-plant scenarios on these maps. There’s also room to grow in other areas, such as their struggles with retake scenarios on Sunset (B site).

From season to season, the team’s winrate in post-plant and retake scenarios has decreased by nearly 3%. However, they’ve been planting more often on attack and allowing opponents to plant less frequently on defense, showing strategic progress despite the slight decline.

MAP ORDER

Based on all the information provided above, the team’s map priority ranking can be established through a combination of mathematical calculations and logical reasoning. This priority is shown in Figure 6, and it differs from the team’s actual priority based on their veto (see Figure 7).

Figure 6. Map Order: KPI

Figure 7. Map Order: Veto

It differs in that the team slightly overestimates its own strength on Lotus and Sunset, as well as slightly underestimates its potential on Haven and Ascent. Simultaneously, their performance on other maps roughly corresponds to the veto.

PLAYER ANALYSIS

This section evaluates the individual performance of the players during «Stage 2», highlighting their contributions in the overall, attack, and defense categories, and compares these contributions with their «Stage 1» results to assess their progress and development.

Figure 8 presents the overall individual performance metrics of the players: K/D ratio (K/D) and entry rate (E%), where E% shows the winrate of their first duel. These metrics are shown as a change relative to the average values, with K/D set at 1 and E% at 50%.

Figure 8. Player Performance: OVERALL, ATK, DEF

As illustrated in Figure 8, the team’s players show a strong preference for defense, with «something» standing out thanks to his 1.8 K/D and 73% E%. However, «f0rsakeN» displays some inconsistency, while «PatMen», the new player replacing «mindfreak», has stats that need improvement.

Compared to last season’s stats, the players are either holding steady or even stepping up their game on an individual level, which points to work in the right direction.

XvY ANALYSIS

This section evaluates the team’s performance in various player-count scenarios (XvY), where X represents the number of live players on the team and Y the opposing team’s live players. It also provides an analysis of their winrate in these scenarios compared to their earlier tournament results to identify improvements or challenges in their adaptability and clutch performance.

Figure 9. XvY Winrate Matrix

Figure 9 demonstrates that the XvY gradient matrix of the PRX team has a standard distribution with a slight positive skew, highlighting their reliable output across various match scenarios.

Figure 10. XvY Winrate Change Matrix Compared to the «Stage 1» Teams Average

As shown in Figure 10, compared to other tournament teams, the team struggles when playing with fewer than 6 players alive, excluding 3v3 scenarios. Otherwise, the team performs strongly across the board.

Figure 11. XvY Winrate Change Matrix Compared to «Stage 1»

Looking at Figure 11, which compares the team’s performance to their previous tournament, it’s tough to pinpoint exactly why they clinched the win — the numbers are pretty mixed. On the upside, there’s a clear boost in 4v4 and 3v3 scenarios, but they took a big hit in several others, like 2v3 and 2v4 scenarios.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

In this section, the focus will be shifted to the economic component of the team. The $ sign shows the relationships between different types of buy: full buy ($$$), semi-buy ($$), and eco ($/0). Simultaneously, the Δ$ sign reflects the team’s performance in each round in terms of their buying power relative to that of their opponent: with advantage (+), parity (=), and disadvantage (-). The changes that have occurred since «Stage 1» will also be evaluated.

Figure 12. Economic Performance: $ and Δ$

From an economic perspective (see Figure 12), the team’s performance matches or exceeds the average of other tournament teams, signaling that they’re largely on the right track overall. One area to watch is situations with an advantage on attack, where this metric has dipped slightly compared to «Stage 1».