VCT 2025 EMEA «STAGE 2»: TL

ANALYTICS

VCT 2025 EMEA «STAGE 2»: TL 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 EMEA region, Team Liquid (TL) delivered a near-flawless performance, suffering just a single defeat that still propelled them to the regional championship title and direct qualification for the year’s premier event, VCT Champions 2025. This outcome feels entirely fitting, given their consistent top-3 finishes throughout the year.

This paper provides an overview of the TL 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

PCF: PRX 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 shown in Figure 1, the team typically sticks to well-established compositions on most maps, but on Corrode, they’re still experimenting, given the map’s recent release.

Figure 2. Roster and Composition During «Stage 1»

As seen in the comparison between Figures 1 and 2, the team significantly overhauled their compositions during the offseason and even dropped Haven from their map pool, unable to find a suitable lineup for it.

MAP STATS

Figure 3. Map Performance: Map Playrate and Winrate

Figure 4. Round Performance: Round and Pistol Round Winrates

Based on the visual data presented in Figures 3 and 4, the team’s overall performance is impressive, though concerns remain about their struggles on Icebox and inconsistent pistol round results from side to side.

Compared to «Stage 1», all of the key metrics have seen a noticeable boost: their map winrate climbed by 17%, while round and pistol round winrates rose by 4% and 18%, respectively.

WIN CONDITIONS

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

Figure 6. Retake Performance: Retake Winrate and Its Change Compared to the «Stage 2» Teams Average

According to the information presented in Figures 5 and 6, the team excels at managing post-plant scenarios on most maps, though their performance dips slightly below the tournament teams’ average on Bind and Sunset — nothing too critical. In retake scenarios, however, they still have work to do, particularly on Icebox, Bind, and Corrode.

The team’s overall winrate in post-plant and retake scenarios has dropped by 4% compared to the previous season. However, the team has ramped up their aggression on attack, planting the spike more frequently by 19% as a result. This aggressive playstyle also benefits their defense, where they’ve improved in retake situations by 10%.

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 7, and it differs from the team’s actual priority based on their veto (see Figure 8).

Figure 7. Map Order: KPI

Figure 8. Map Order: Veto

It differs in that the team overestimates its own strength on Sunset and Corrode, as well as underestimates its potential on Ascent and Lotus. 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 9 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 9. Player Performance: OVERALL, ATK, DEF

As illustrated in Figure 9, the team clearly favors playing on defense, where each player’s individual stats are simply staggering, with «Keiko» standing out as untouchable. On attack, however, the team struggles, mainly due to frequent losses in engagements for the entry kill.

Comparing the individual performance of the players with the previous season, each member of the team has shown slightly improved stats overall, while «trexx», despite his currently underwhelming numbers, has successfully stepped in to replace «Serial» from previous tournaments.

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 10. XvY Winrate Matrix

Figure 10 demonstrates that the XvY gradient matrix of the TL team has a standard distribution with a bias towards better values, indicating strong and consistent performance across scenarios.

Figure 11. XvY Winrate Change Matrix Compared to the «Stage 2» Teams Average

As shown in Figure 11, the vast majority of scenarios show a positive difference compared to other teams’ metrics, with notable gains in important scenarios like 4v5 and 3v3. The exceptions are 4v2 and 2v4 scenarios, where performance lags.

Figure 12. XvY Winrate Change Matrix Compared to «Stage 1»

As shown in Figure 12, the team displays a similar trend — many metrics show significant growth compared to their previous tournament, pointing to clear team progress.

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 13. Economic Performance: $ and Δ$

From an economic perspective (see Figure 13), the team’s performance matches or exceeds the average of «Stage 2» teams, showing they’re heading in the right direction — though their attack-side metrics are somewhat lower than on defense. Moreover, compared to «Stage 1», the team has improved in full buy situations (and parity rounds as a result), but they’re winning with advantages less often now.