Mind you, i'm not ranting. I'm just saying that in my opinion, assault have been nerfed a little, and on the other hand reactive shooting (or shooting in general) has been upgraded and made stronger.
This is by design. CC was different in 2ed it was basically a large scale skirmish game. With the change from 2ed to 3ed, where the game design was based around large unit battles like WHFB (and unit standardization), assault became the center of the game (most likely unintentionally). It has taken 3 more editions of the game to finally tone assault down, but I think now that shooting and assaulting are fairly well balanced. Shooting is easier and more predictable (from a Mathhammer perspective). Assault, while harder to get into, is riskier but has higher rewards.
The only thing in the general Meta right now that is making shooting seem far more powerful is that the general meta (and the tournament scene specifically) have not also adjusted to the higher terrain density that is recommended and encouraged by the rules. Just upping the terrain count by 2-3 pieces and adding a LoS blocking piece or two changes the game for shooting units considerably.
I run a heavy CC Eldar army and am competitive against any army I have faced. What I don't do is rely on CC to be my only tool, I support it with Long Range Fire support, disruption units, and a mix of very fast and moderately fast units that attract fire until the Hammer falls. Which is what I would recommend for any "all-comers" army list.
One of the best ways to deal with fragile, firepower heavy armies (Tau and IG) is to beat their face in with a stick (the other is large cover ignoring template weapons).
Assault isn't "dead", the Khorne Berzerkers riding forward in a wall of rhinos (or insert any scouting, outflanking, or deep striking assault unit) and launching into assault with no risk is dead and that is a good thing.