you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image - I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this.
what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. - the Stoics consistently cautioned against dogma, evidenced in practice by the abundance of various interpretations - Marcus Aurelius's interpretation differs in ways from Seneca's, which differs in ways from Epictetus's, Zeno's, Chrysippus's, etc. A common saying among modern Stoics is "Stoicism has no pope."
As for constructive responses, google "responding to nietzsche on stoicism."
Nietzsche is not saying that Stoics are consciously doing this, rather that it's an unconscious process - and in Nietzsche's view, a rather fundamental one that far from just the Stoics are involved in. One of Nietzsche's central tenets is that pretty much all 'knowledge' and 'belief' is just us projecting our interpretations (rooted in what we would now term cognitive biases, value judgements, sensations, etc) on reality and then "reading" them back to ourselves as the ground truth, which is in fact unknowable as such.
In general, Nietzsche regards philosophical attitudes as determined by physiology and environment, and in fact says later that Stoicism is a fine medicine for certain kinds of people in some periods of time.
Something which Nietzsche is guilty of himself. But that road leads to postmodernism.
His focus instead is that, given the essential failure of metaphysics, to instead try to destroy as many as the 'old idols' rooted in these cognitive biases and value judgements - to see to what extent life could endure the incorporation of small-t truth (Nietzsche suspected that many errors were actually necessary for life) - and to re-evaluate our values with the (arbitrary!) view of increasing the health of the human animal. And he makes clear that this depends on the person: "the exception should not try to become the rule." Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly not for everyone.
In terms of practical life advice, Nietzsche ends on somewhat common ground with the Stoics -
> My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it.
By the way, one of the difficulties of a philosophy explicitly not for everyone is that it cannot avoid turning into us-versus-them, followed shortly by the wise and knowing versus the misguided, misled, and heathen sheep. One lesson of the 20th century (if it needed teaching again) was that philosophy can be weaponized.
(One nice thing about (my interpretation of) epicureanism and possibly Zhuangzi is that the sheep may be heathens, but I don't need to care.)
He poses the question "Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different?" A central point of Stoicism is answering no to that. Recognizing that our preferences are merely preferences, not needs, and that we can go forward without them controlling our attitude toward what life brings.
Of course we have preferences, and we make evaluations, and we endeavor to change. But Stoicism is partly about grasping those things loosely rather than staking our emotional well-being on them.
Even the cutesy "live according to life": does anyone deny that we often resist life? We know there will be setbacks, losses, death, etc., and instead of anticipating and flowing with them we are surprised and dismayed.
Nietzsche valued a sort of resistance to life. But it's a strawman to treat that value as axiomatic and dismiss Stoicism as inherently contradictory.
An extreme, but notable flaw.