I love Warzone, and to a lesser extent, Warzone Assault. I think 343 nailed it with this concept. However, there does seem to be a disturbance in the Force.
Warzone (not Assault) is designed to be won in one of two ways. Firstly, a team gets to 1000 points by killing bosses, and in the course of doing so, members of the other team. In the course of accomplishing this, they will control one or two bases. Secondly, a team will capture all three bases, make a concerted push on the opposing core room, and then destroy the core. Some of the best Warzone matches I've had is where the final score is 1000 to 900-something that go for 25+ minutes, and I've been in the "overrun everything" matches that only last 3-6 minutes (usually the losing side, but not always).
My two cents worth: if a team violates these parameters, such as capturing all bases, taking control of the core room and deliberately not destroying it, in order to spawn kill the other team as much as possible, that's in violation of the game type. Now, I will defend the core room all day long, and let you come to me if you're out there to just kill me if I try to exit. Not opposed to that - I'll make you work for your victory. But a team that CAN destroy the core but choses not to is BS.
If this becomes a big problem then 343 does need to look at this - again, I love Warzone, if it's played the way it's designed to be played.
P.S. For a variety of reasons, a lot of players won't be joining to play with a Spartan Company, or even party up with friends, so the solo gamer aspect definitely needs to be taken into consideration. One player, no matter how good, isn't going to affect things if their team, composed of other solo players, is getting stomped on by a cooperative team that refuses to actually win (and thus end) the match.